aid patterns in central eastern...

22
1 R. Schuman Miami-Florida European Union Center of Excellence AID PATTERNS IN CENTRAL EASTERN EUROPE Markéta Vavrečková Vol. 5, No. 19 December 2008 Published with the support of the EU Commission

Upload: hoangnhu

Post on 30-Jun-2018

214 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

1

R Schuman

Miami-Florida European Union Center of Excellence

AID PATTERNS IN CENTRAL EASTERN EUROPE

Markeacuteta Vavrečkovaacute

Vol 5 No 19

December 2008

Published with the support of the EU Commission

2

EUMA European Union Miami Analysis (EUMA) Special Series is a service of analytical essays on current trend setting issues and developing news about the European Union These papers are produced by the Jean Monnet Chair in cooperation with the Miami-Florida European Union Center of Excellence (a partnership of the University of Miami and Florida International University) as an outreach service for the academic business and diplomatic communities Among the topics to be included in the series the following are suggested The collapse of the Constitution and its rescue Turkey prospects of membership Immigration crisis and cultural challenges Security threats and responses The EU and Latin America The EU as a model and reference in the world The Common Agricultural Policy and other public subsidies The euro and the dollar EU image in the United States

These topics form part of the pressing agenda of the EU and represent the multifaceted and complex nature of the European integration process These papers also seek to highlight the internal and external dynamics which influence the workings of the EU and its relationship with the rest the world Miami - Florida European Union Center Jean Monnet Chair Staff University of Miami Joaquiacuten Roy (Director) 1000 Memorial Drive Astrid B Boening (Associate Director) 101 Ferreacute Building Mariacutea Lorca (Associate Editor) Coral Gables FL 33124-2231 Maxime Lariveacute (Research Assistant) Phone 305-284-3266 Fax (305) 284 4406 Web wwwmiamiedueucenter Florida International University Elisabeth Prugl (FIU Co-Director) Inter-American Jean Monnet Editorial Board Carlos Hakansson Universidad de Piura Peruacute Finn Laursen Dalhousie University Halifax Canada Michel Levi-Coral Universidad Andina Simoacuten Boliacutevar Quito Ecuador Joseacute Luis Martiacutenez-Estaycedil Universidad de los Andes Santiago de Chile Chile Feacutelix Pentildea Universidad Nacional de Tres de Febrero Buenos Aires Argentina Stephan Sberro Instituto Tecnoloacutegico Autoacutenomo de Meacutexico Eric Tremolada Universidad del Externado de Colombia Bogotaacute Colombia

3

AID PATTERNS IN CENTRAL EASTERN EUROPElowast

Markeacuteta Vavrečkovaacute

clubs Abstract Central-Eastern European (CEE) and Baltic countries

have undergone significant political and economic transformations since the 1990s One transition that has not yet received sufficient scholarly attention is the shift in regional aid flows Starting in the mid 1990s this trend saw CEE and Baltic countries emerge as donors of foreign aid from a prior condition as net recipients Why have these new democracies strived to make that change to systematically begin to give foreign aid What are the patterns of aid giving that they follow

Evidence suggests that all the donor countries in the CEE and Baltic regions behaved similarly to each other as they institutionalized their own aid flows patterns This research hypothesizes that 1) national governments have determined their overall levels of aid spending in response to pressures and incentives from international organizations 2) political and economic interests play a key role in determining top recipients of bilateral aid Thus donor interest overrides recipient need

Introduction This research aims to contribute to understanding why countries give foreign aid It focuses on the new donors of Central-Eastern Europe (the Czech Republic Hungary Poland and Slovakia) and the Baltic states (Estonia Latvia Lithuania) These countries represent a unique set of donors among the emerging donor community They have all undergone major political and economic changes since the late 1980rsquos They have democratized and they have transformed their economies from centrally planned to market driven 1

This paper seeks to explain the onset of aid giving Why did the countries in the sample start to dole out aid Second I look at the overall levels of Official Development Assistance (ODA) from the CEE and the Baltic and examine the ratio between multilateral and bilateral aid Third I examine bilateral aid flows by looking at the aid recipients I Donor Interest vs Recipient Need

Why countries give aid is a question that has occupied scholars for decades (Alesina Dollar 2000) Most scholars have agreed that governmental decisions about aid disbursements have been shaped by a combination of self-interest and altruistic motivations (Maizels Nissanke 1984 Neumayer 2003 Bertheacutelemy Tichit 2004 Bearce Tirone 2007 etc) International relations theories give support to both sets of motivations While both classical realism and neo-realism

lowast A modified version of this paper was presented at Northeastern Political Science Association conference Boston November 15 2008 This paper is a part of my dissertation project clubs Markeacuteta Vavrečkovaacute is a PhD candidate in the Department of Political Science at Northeastern University in Boston She holds an MA from Charles University Prague and has studied at Universiteacute Luis Pasteur Strasbourg Ms Vavrečkovaacute has taught undergraduate courses in Comparative Politics International Relations and Social Policy at Northeastern University Charles University and at the Global Institute for Leadership and Civic Development in Bloomington Indiana She has also been a researcher at the European Parliament and at the Czech Development Agency

4

center on donor self-interest idealism provides a set of explanations revolving around the needs of recipients

In line with traditional realist thinking Hans Morgenthau suggests that not all interests abroad can be secured by either military or diplomatic means This is when foreign aid comes into play Commercial and security interests can sometimes be better served by providing foreign aid than by using force (Morgenthau 1962 p301) The neorealist perspective further suggests that statesrsquo foreign policy can be analyzed when looking at the international structure This structure works as a constraint on state behavior According to Kenneth Waltz states act in a certain manner because the international system forces them to do so (Waltz 1979) Countries are seeking to build political coalitions in order to insure their security (Snyder 2004) Foreign aid allocations whether symbolic or with a high impact factor on the recipient can have a strengthening effect on coalition cohesion if performed by all members of a coalition Foreign aid allocations can have especially positive effects on the standing of the weaker members in a coalition

According to idealism foreign aid allocations are a response to social and economic needs in less developed countries is Poverty alleviation has become one the most pressing global issues in the 21st

Schraeder

century (Millennium Declaration 2000) International cooperation is on the rise To idealists the realist concept of international relations based on competition ignores such realities ( Hook and Taylor 1998 p298)

This research attempts to determine whether the realistneorealist or idealist thinking prevails in governmental decisions regarding aid allocation from the CEE and Baltic countries It recognizes that governmental decisions are neither purely selfish nor purely altruistic but it seeks to parse out the relative importance of realistneorealist variables and idealist variables II International Environment vs Domestic Arena Much of the literature has been concerned with understanding governmental decision regarding foreign aid flows Yet there is a lack of research regarding the process shaping governmental decisions What domestic and international institutions influence governments when allocating foreign aid resources and more importantly which variables shape the onset of foreign aid

On the international level the influence of international organizations is paramount In particular the UN and the EU have had great influence on CEE and Baltic countries These organizations have in numerous occasions used mechanisms of coercion and stimulation in order to influence policy outcomes in the examined emerging donor countries (Moravcsik Vaduchova 2003)

In addition to formal international organizations being a part of an alliance could have influenced new democracies in their decision to become donors The relatively small size of the CEE and Baltic countries their geographical position in the center of Europe and their recent experience with oppressive foreign powers make security concerns in these countries highly topical Once part of the Soviet Block CEE and Baltic countries realigned their security alliance with Western democratic powers However loyalty to the new allies goes beyond formal institutional structures such as NATO Countries usually coordinate their foreign policy positions regarding important international issues in accordance with the Western alliance Foreign aid disbursements consistent with the interests of the new coalition can be an expression of support for the coalitionrsquos efforts and simultaneously a symbolic safeguard for ensuring a donorrsquos own security

Thirdly individual countries could pressure for the establishment of aid flows Particularly the CEE and Baltic countries have been a focus of US foreign policy because of their strategic position between the advanced democracies and Russia For example as part of its missile defense shield design the US has declared its intention to plant a dozen anti-missile warheads in Poland and to place an anti-ballistic radar in the Czech Republic (Gordon 2006) It is

5

reasonable to expect that the US could also pressure CEE and Baltic governments in order to obtain specific aid flow configurations more in tune with its strategic preferences

Lancaster claims that at the beginning the 21st

Lancaster claims that international organizations increasingly promote the solidarity of advanced countries with the less developed world and that such organizations are persistent their

century aid has increasingly become a norm supported by domestic governments and a substantial part of their constituencies in advanced democracies Western donors no longer question whether they should give aid or not (Lancaster 2006) Emerging donors in the sample have undergone a successful transition from authoritarianism to democracy Onset of aid giving can mean that the new democracies have adopted the values of international solidarity together with democratic standards Recognition that aid giving is a standard adopted by advanced countries can also have a distinct effect on the new democracies These countries are aiming to ldquocatch-uprdquo with their Western counterparts For example typical benchmarks for assessing progress in the two examined regions are economic performance levels of social spending and standards of living in the old EU member states From this catching up perspective national governments can decide to mimic the activities of the ldquorich country clubrdquo such as aid giving so that they give the impression of being already ldquoinrdquo In this case aid giving would not be a reflection of a change in domestic norms and values but it would rather be an example of symbolic activity performed in order to gain status and international recognition

On the domestic level several actors might have contributed to the onset of aid giving First the newly established non-governmental sector started to play a role in the CEE and Baltic countries after the collapse of communism A multitude of philanthropic organizations has emerged in the 1990s and they have attempted to lobby their governments to promote their priorities For example NGOs involved in humanitarian and developmental activities in the CEE and Baltic countries have united in national umbrella associations in order to facilitate policy dialogue with governments (Migliorisi 2003 p31) This suggests a substantial commitment to influence policy making

The collapse of the Soviet Block created a potential for establishing commercial relations virtually anywhere in the world Governments around the world mostly support their private businesses in establishing commercial ties Foreign aid is sometimes used as a tool for facilitating these commercial interests For instance governments can give out aid so the recipient country is more willing to accept donor exports Pressures from private companies could be an important factor contributing to the onset of aid

A development agenda is being adopted and pursued by political parties in Western democracies For example Theacuterien and Noeumll argue that within the OECD countries social-democratic parties have an effect on a countryrsquos level of development assistance (Theacuterien Noeumll 2000) Similarly a foreign aid agenda could be incorporated into political programs of political parties in the emerging donor countries and could have influenced governmental decisions

Finally values held by domestic populations can also influence aid giving Democratic transition has had an impact on the preferences and norms held by individuals in the emerging donor countries Widespread free mass media reach new economic ties and extended possibilities to travel abroad have shaped the perceptions of ordinary citizens toward their countriesrsquo role in the globalized world Being exposed to international affairs also allowed citizens to fully develop their opinions on the role of their countries vis-agrave-vis less developed countries All these new phenomena could have materialized into a support for aid giving

Understanding the onset stage is especially important today when total aid flows have been globally on the rise since 2003 (OECD 2008) and the community of donor countries is growing In the mid-1990rsquos when CEE and Baltic countries started to allocate foreign aid Korea Thailand and Turkey began their transformation into donors of foreign aid as well Later Arab countries like Kuwait Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates joined the donor club Currently China and Russia are also establishing themselves as donors

6

efforts to push more national governments to provide more aid In this environment aid giving has become an international standard for governments in rich countries (Lancaster 2006 p 5) This hypothesis presents a dynamic deserving rigorous testing in the case of emerging donors as well given that most of these countries have undergone economic growth in the recent years This project is an attempt to test the hypothesis particularly in the Central European region III Official Development Assistance (ODA) Foreign aid refers to transfers among governments and between governments and international organizations It can be in the form of cash (grants or concessional loans) in kind (eg food aid) or in the form of debt relief The Development Assistance Committee (DAC) of the OECD uses the official development assistance (ODA) indicator to measure foreign aid flows (OECD 2008) ODA flows are divided into two basic categories multilateral aid (transfers from governments to international organizations) and bilateral aid (transfers from governments to governments)

The aim of ODA transfers is to contribute to economic development and welfare ODA does not include military expenditures subsidies to promote private investment funding for anti-terrorism or other law-enforcement programs bribes costs of representation or private charitable giving (OECD 2007) It is important to keep in mind that foreign aid differs from humanitarian aid which is typically provided in response to humanitarian crises The primary objective of humanitarian aid is to save lives whereas development aid focuses on improving socio-economic conditions ODA is typically measured in US dollars ($) or as a percentage of gross national income (GNI)2

2 The OECD defines GNI as GDP less primary incomes payable to non- resident units plus primary incomes receivable from non-resident units (OECD Glossary of Statistical Terms 2008)

The DAC collects data from OECD members and affiliates regarding ODA flows

Although CEE and Baltic countries are not yet DAC members they have adjusted their national statistics according to DAC methodology and they submit annual reports to the organization Comparable data for the Czech Republic Hungary Poland and the Slovak Republic is available starting in the mid-1990s through the OECD database

This paper aims to reveal trends in overall aid giving among emerging CEE and Baltic donors Absolute ODA and allocations relative to GNI are presented Further I focus on ratios between bilateral and multilateral aid in the case of the Czech Republic Hungary Poland and the Slovak Republic Top bilateral aid recipients for each of these donor countries will be identified Eventually I examine the onset stage in the case of the Czech Republic IV Findings IV1 Total Foreign Aid In all seven examined countries ODAGNI ratios have grown between the years 2001 ndash 2006 The most radical growth can be seen in the case of Hungary and Poland where the ODAGNI ratio grew five times during the course of five years

7

Table 1 ODAGNI ODAGNI ratio (in ) 2001 2006 Poland 002 01 Czech Republic 005 011 Slovak Republic 006 0085 Hungary 002 01 Lithuania 002 0064 Latvia 002 006 Estonia 001 006 Migliorisi Stephano (2003) The Consequences of Enlargement for Development Policy CEC (2006) Communication for the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament ldquoFinancing for Development and Aid Effectiveness ndash The challenges of scaling up EU aid 2006 ndash 2008rdquo

The DAC offers detailed ODA statistics for the Czech Republic Hungary Poland and

the Slovak Republic (Grafs 1-4 source data Appendix 1) The data reveal that total ODA spending grew only incrementally between the years 1998-2002 Substantial growth is traceable since 2003 I attribute this pattern to the process of enlargement in the European Union (EU)

The Czech Republic Hungary Poland and the Slovak Republic together with the three Baltic countries and Cyprus Malta and Slovenia joined the European Union in May of 2004 Prior to accession these countries had to harmonize their national laws and practices according to the European legislature Foreign aid was one of the numerous areas subject to negotiation between the acceding states and the European Commission The applicants agreed to join the EUrsquos development and humanitarian aid framework on the date of their accession EU membership gave the new members the possibility to take part in decision-making on the European level 3

Data indicate that ODAGNI continued to grow in the following years approaching the commitment levels made to the EU Increase in ODA disbursements under EU pressure was

However it has also brought new commitments The countries were asked to restructure their national foreign aid framework to increase development spending and to start paying contributions to the EUrsquos foreign aid budget (European Development Fund)

When examining ODAGNI levels the EU influence is evident In 2003 a year prior the EU accession ODA disbursements double in case of Slovakia and almost doubled in the case of the Czech Republic and Hungary Poland witnessed steep growth of the ODAGNI ratio in the following year

As a new EU member the Czech Republic Hungary Poland and Slovakia took part in the European Council negotiations of 2005 Together with other 20 EU members the countries made a commitment to strive for a goal of 056 of ODAGNI per year However more specific and realistic commitments based on economic potential were negotiated on a country grouping basis Old members committed themselves to 05 of ODAGNI per year The ten new members set a goal of annual 017 of ODAGNI

3 Detailed discussion of the harmonization process and its possible implications for the EU can be found in Granell F (2005)

8

Graphs 1- 4 Bilateral vs Multilateral ODA

Czech Republic Bilateral vs Multilateral ODA

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Year

Multilateral ODA

Bilateral ODA

Slovak Republic Bilateral vs Multilateral ODA

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Year

Multilateral ODABilateral ODA

Poland Bilateral vs Multilateral ODA

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Year

Multilateral ODABilateral ODA

Hungary Bilateral vs Multilateral ODA

0

2040

60

80

100120

140

160

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Year

Multilateral ODA

Bilateral ODA

9

probably opposed by some segments within the new membersrsquo governments Nevertheless membership in the EU was a long-term economic and geopolitical interest of the Thus sacrificing a small fraction of their GNI as foreign aid was a minor cost compared to the benefits of EU membership

However experience from previous waves of enlargement shows that the logic of long-term benefits is oftentimes forgotten once applicants are in the Union 4

Another noticeable trend is that Iraq and Afghanistan have become major recipients of Czech foreign aid since in 2003 The two countries received almost 50 of total Czech bilateral aid in 2003 The flows have decreased since then but Iraq still obtains the most aid of all bilateral recipients Diplomatic purposes behind these disbursements are clear The Czech Republic entered into an alliance with the US and Western European powers after the end of the Cold War

Thus it is likely to expect that after accession new members would relax their commitment to EU membership pre-conditions This trend can be perhaps already witnessed in the case of the Czech Republic Hungary and Slovakia where ODAGNI ratio has decreased slightly in 2007 IV2 Bilateral Aid Are the bilateral allocations of the new donors driven by their interests or the recipients needs McKinlay and Little used these two independent variables to explain aid allocation for the first time in the 1970s (McKinlay Little 1977 1978iiiiii 1979) and they continue to be the most standardized variables today (eg Bearce Tirone 2007) Numerous studies have operationalized the variables in different ways Nevertheless most scholars have included political economic and cultural aspects within the donor interest variable (Neumayer 2003 p 19) I do the same in this research Further I operationalize recipient need based on identification with the group of Least Developed Countries This classification takes into account per capita income and combines it with quality of life indicators (UN World Bank 2006)

In the following section I discuss bilateral flows allocated by the Czech Hungarian Polish and Slovak governments OECD database does not include any data for disbursements from Estonia Latvia and Lithuania Czech Republic receives most attention in this section due to the availability of most detailed data and my most immediate experience with aid management in the country

In the Czech Republic bilateral aid was traditionally dispersed among many recipients in the period of 1998-2000 This dispersion happened mainly because ten ministries used to be responsible for project implementation (Migliorisi 2003) There were attempts to streamline the number of countries receiving aid by identifying eight long-term priority and two mid-term priority countries Yet the effort was not concentrated enough until the late-2000s For example the country carried out over 100 projects in about 35 countries in 2005

Starting in 2001 states of the former Yugoslavia have received more intensive attention According to the amount of total aid received Bosnia-Herzegovina Serbia and Moldova ranked among the top recipients (Appendix 2 Table 1) None of these countries belongs to the group of least developed countries thus the hypothesis of prioritizing based on recipient need can be rejected There are two possible alternative explanations for this choice of recipients First the former Yugoslavia is a region in Southern Europe thus geographical proximity is clearly an advantage when implementing the project Further Slavic populations prevail in all post-Yugoslavian countries The linguistic familiarity can additionally facilitate project management and effectiveness A second alternative explanation suggests that the Czech Republic started to be deeply engaged in former Yugoslavian countries because of the pressure of Czech NGOs Section IV3 will further discuss these hypotheses

4 Expansion of this idea can be found for example in Moravcsik A amp Vaduchova A M (2003) ldquoNational Interest State Power and EU Enlargementrdquo East European Politics and Societies 17(1) 42-57

10

Providing resources for operations conducted by its allies is a most efficient symbol of political support However in the case of Afghanistan altruistic motivations are also present since the country belongs to the group of least developed countries (UN World Bank 2006)

Hungary displays similar yet less distinct patterns than the Czech Republic (Appendix 2 Table 2) Former Yugoslavian countries remain the primary recipients of Hungarian bilateral ODA However Hungary provided a large proportion of its foreign aid to in 2004 and 2006 This timing parallels the military operations of Hungaryrsquos allies in these two countries In 2005 allocations to both Afghanistan and Iraq were only marginal ($ 007 and $ 038 million respectively) and this represents a deviation deserving further qualitative exploration The Polish case displays similar patterns in some regards yet it substantially differs in others The former Yugoslavia has been the highest recipient of Polish between the years 1998 ndash 2006 Nevertheless Polandrsquos disbursements to Iraq and Afghanistan have been rather negligible (Appendix 2 Table 3) This is a rather surprising trend Out of the seven examined countries Poland has traditionally been the closest ally to the US In 2005 President George W Bush asserted that Poland has been a fantastic ally (White House in McNamara 2007 p1) Poland is one of the four leading countries in the coalition for the War on Terror alongside Australia Britain and the US The Polish government initially sent 900 troops to Iraq In 2006 it committed an additional 900 troops to fight the insurgency in Afghanistan (Malkin and agencies 2006) Thus it would be reasonable to expect that US ndash Polish alliance would be reflected in the Polish preferences for top aid recipients However the evidence shows the opposite Iraq and Afghanistan received in 2006 only $047 million and $055 million respectively which refutes the hypothesis of political alliance between the US and Poland influencing aid disbursements Furthermore Poland shows a consistent commitment to Kazakhstan a former Soviet Republic With an annual PPP GDP of $ 10400 and 73 growth rate (CIA Fact sheet) Kazakhstan does not belong to the group of least developed countries Thus I refute altruistic explanation for this commitment On the contrary I hypothesize that this commitment is related to the fact that Kazakhstan possesses enormous fossil fuel reserves and plentiful supplies of other minerals and metals which could be potentially beneficial to the Polish economy In 2005 and 2006 Poland allocated relatively substantial sums to Belarus Ukraine and Uzbekistan three other post-Soviet countries It is too early to state whether these allocations represent a major trend However a potential explanation for these allocations could be a mix of economic considerations (especially in the case of Uzbekistan) connected with geographical proximity and cultural similarity For Slovakia as is the case with the other three new donors the primary focus has been the former Yugoslavia Afghanistan established itself as one of the major recipients of Slovak aid between 2004 and 2006 A combination of donor political interests and recipient need is probably reflected in this trend Afghanistan has been a major target for Western intervention and at the same time it belongs to the group of least developed countries Sudan has been a recipient of Slovak aid between the years of 2002 and 2006 which comprises the entire period of recorded Slovak bilateral disbursements In 2005 and 2006 Sudan became the biggest recipient of Slovak aid substantially ahead of other recipients Slovakia does not have any political nor economic interests in Sudan Sudan is a longstanding member of the least developed countries group thus it is of great need of foreign assistance Slovaks allocations seem to be responding to this need

In conclusion all four examined countries display a clear common pattern in their focus on the states from the former Yugoslavia which is probably motivated by geographical and cultural proximity While the Czech Republic Hungary and Slovakia strengthen their political alliance with Western powers thorough generous allocations to Afghanistan and Iraq Poland focuses on Kazakhstan a resourceful country once a part of the Soviet block Slovak allocations to Sudan seem to indicate altruistic motivations

11

IV3 Czech Republic Case Study Capacity Building What were the forces that shaped the onset stage of aid giving Has the institutional framework of the new economic policy towards developing countries developed as a result of domestic or international incentives

In 1995 the Czech Republic became a member of the OECD which fosters cooperation among developed democracies Within the organization the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) aims at improving governmental policies towards developing countries The Czech Republic obtained the status of an observer in 1996 which allowed it to participate in DAC activities without partaking in any negotiations

The DAC introduced Czech public sector administrators to its methods of collecting information on foreign aid flows in the second part of the 1990s Since then the country has adopted the concept of official development assistance as the principal unit for measuring its foreign aid disbursements Data based on the OECD methodology are available for the first time for the year 1999 Czech ODA in this year was $ 2642 million or 0027 of the GNI

In 1999 the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) launched a series of projects which aimed to create national capacities for international development cooperation Several administrators were trained in order to understand foreign aid concepts and managerial tools Further Czech administrators were able to visit developing countries and learn about the needs of potential aid recipients The UNDP financed the founding of the Development Center The Center was created outside of governmental structures at a research institute for international relations The main objective of the Center has been to carry out consultative services to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs which forms governmental strategies for foreign aid In doing so the Center has helped with the design of national policy for cooperation with developing countries The UNDP ceased capacity-building activities in 2004 just as the Czech government was about to enter the European Union The total of contributions from the UNDP towards Czech capacity-building has reached over USD 1 million over the course of five years The Czech government complemented the UNDP budget with an additional USD 012 million

In 2002 the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) which has a strong international reputation as a foreign aid agency launched a program for strengthening ODA delivery agencies in the Czech Republic Hungary Poland and Slovakia This five-year long project aimed to spend USD 15 million in order to increase the amount and quality of assistance given by new donors to developing countries The project has been divided into two phases The focus in the first phase was institutional support and capacity building The second phase was centered on trilateral cooperation when the CIDA and a new donor conduct projects in developing countries together The first phase in which the Czech Republic received training and technical assistance finished in 2004 when the CIDA declared the Czech institutional capacities as sufficient The second phase of trilateral cooperation finished in 2007 In 2008 the Development Center became a Development Agency fully comparable to those of OECDDAC members

The impact of CIDArsquos assistance on capacity building has been smaller than the UNDPrsquos impact Most of the resources allocated for the Czech Republic were further used for projects in developing countries However the collaboration of Czech administrators with their Canadian counterparts in project management led to significant know-how transfers for the Czech specialists

The aforementioned evidence shows that the initial setup for foreign aid management in the Czech Republic was heavily shaped by international institutions The OECD through the DAC provided expertise in policy design and introduced basic concepts used for aid processing The UNDP and CIDA financed national capacity building These organizations trained Czech

12

administrators to become experts in foreign aid and also were the force behind the origin of new institutional capacities which are now concentrated in the Czech Development Agency and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Bilateral Aid I have identified the states from the former Yugoslavia as the biggest recipients of Czech ODA In this section I claim that the Czech government has consistently been engaged in these countries because of pressure from domestic NGOrsquos

People in Need (PIN) is by far the largest non-governmental organization providing relief aid and development assistance in the Czech Republic It is one of the largest organizations of its kind in post-communist Europe and has administered projects in thirty-seven countries over the past fourteen years The annual budget of PIN in 2005 was 109 million EURO ($ 137 million) (King Exnerova Blazek eds 2006)

PIN began in 1992 when dissidents and leaders of the Czechoslovak Velvet Revolution teamed with conflict journalists working for the Czech Public Service Television They aimed to provide humanitarian aid to the civil war torn region of Nagorno-Karabakh (former USSR) Since then the activities of the organization have proliferated Although the organization works in fourteen countries in Asia Europe and Africa the main focus of its work has remained in the countries of the former Soviet Union or the former Soviet bloc The organization has been primarily involved in Ukraine Moldova and Tajikistan Throughout the nineties it provided robust assistance during the humanitarian interventions in the war-torn countries of the former Yugoslavia and later during the reconstruction of these areas According to PINrsquos long-term plan the organization would like to further contribute to the reconstruction of the countries of the former Yugoslavia The cultural similarities between the Czech Republic and the region of the Balkan should facilitate such assistance

Caritas is another organization working in the field of foreign humanitarian and development assistance Because the main objective of the organization is provision of social services in the Czech Republic the magnitude of its foreign projects is limited In 2005 the resources allocated to the activities abroad reached $ 16 million which was approximately one tenth of PINrsquos budget (Caritas 2006) Throughout the nineties the organization worked in Chechnya Georgia Ukraine Moldova and the countries of the Balkan which have received priority throughout the 1990s and in the beginning of the 21st century

Both organizations started their activities in former USSR countries and in the Balkan prior to the intensification of governmental flows into these countries The projects were primarily funded by donations or through multilateral agencies Later on governmental funding played a substantial role It is reasonable to expect that this change has occurred due to pressure from these organizations The government might have been easily willing to accommodate the NGOs as their experience in the regions ensured the quality and sustainability of projects Multilateral Aid Czech multilateral ODA disbursements (Graph 5) have followed a similar pattern as total ODA (Graph 1 p10) Multilateral ODA remained rather constant between the years 2000 ndash 2003 Starting in 2004 a dramatic increase occurred I have attributed this growth to entry into the EU in section IV1 This explanation is further reinforced when looking at the specific recipients of multilateral aid The European Union is by far the largest recipient following the year of the countryrsquos accession into the Union The importance of other recipients is decreasing or remains constant as in the case of the UN

13

Graph 5 Czech Republic Multilateral ODA Disbursements

Czech Republic Multilateral ODA Disbursements

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Year

UnspecifiedEC

UN

V Preliminary Conclusion When relating the findings to the theoretical framework outlined in the introductory sections the following conclusions can be made First the case of the Czech Republic suggests that the onset of aid giving has primarily been driven by the international arena Intergovernmental and overseas governmental organizations provided the financial support necessary for capacity building They have also offered substantial transfer of foreign aid know-how Domestic actors such as political parties or non- governmental sector have not played a major role at this stage

Second evidence for the Czech Republic Hungary Poland and Slovakia reveals that the EU an international actor has played a major role in determining current ODA levels Significant growth of total ODA is evident only after the EU mandated and presented it as one of many conditions for EU accession The underlying influence of the EU also manifests itself in the multilateral aid disbursements of the Czech Republic where the vast majority of the funds go to the European Union budget

Third several trends show up when analyzing bilateral allocations For the Czech Republic Hungary Poland and Slovakia post-Yugoslavian nations have been primary recipients of foreign aid Pragmatism rather than altruism derived from recipient need is probably behind this pattern Geographical proximity cultural similarity and a shared experience of a communist past are factors potentially leading to effectiveness in aid allocations The case of the Czech Republic suggests that the non-governmental sector played a constitutive role in prioritizing former Yugoslavian countries

Starting mid-2000s the prioritizing of Afghanistan and Iraq in the Czech Hungarian and Slovak aid disbursements implies that the donors seek to strengthen their political coalition with Western powers Yet donor interest is combined with recipient need in the case of Afghanistan since the country is included on the list of least developed countries

Polish bilateral aid has also been strongly shaped by donor interest but one of a different nature As the country focuses on Kazakhstan natural resources endowed country with rapidly growing GNI economic interest is paramount

Lastly Slovak focus on Sudan in the last couple of years could represent a genuine altruistic response to recipient needs as Sudan belongs to the group of least developed countries (UN World Bank 2006) However it is too soon to conclude if allocations to Sudan form a long-term pattern or is they are merely isolated events without a solid institutional anchor

14

Overall donorsrsquo interest prevails over recipient need when analyzing bilateral allocations Yet different interests motivate the direction of bilateral disbursements Evidence suggests that political and economic motivations are the most frequent ones Recipient need is being reflected primarily when combined with donor interest Isolated instances of altruism occur sporadically

15

Appendix 1 Tables 1 ndash 4 Total Bilateral and Multilateral ODA

Donor Czech Republic Amount Constant Prices (2006 $ millions) Type of flow Net Disbursements Year 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Type of aid ODA 2769 2642 3173 4881 7004 11896 12419 14492 16086 15504 ODAGNI 003 003 003 005 007 011 011 011 012 011 Bilateral ODA 1006 1185 1249 2753 4832 10558 7288 6906 777 7377 Multilateral ODA 1763 1457 1924 2128 2173 1339 5131 7587 8316 8127

UN Agencies 1034 698 634 477 524 57 EC 3854 6619 6874 7167

Unspecified 1924 2128 1139 641 643 491 918 39

Donor Hungary Amount Constant Prices (2006 $ millions) Type of flow Net Disbursements Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Type of aid ODA 2501 716 9866 14949 7487 ODAGNI 003 007 011 014 007 Bilateral ODA 1637 3623 3889 8434 2813 Multilateral ODA 866 3536 5978 6515 4674

16

Donor Poland Amount Constant Prices (2006 $ millions) Type of flow Net Disbursements Year 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Type of aid ODA 2758 3208 4646 5226 2041 3693 14399 21656 29679 30628 ODAGNI 001 001 002 002 NA 001 005 007 009 009 Bilateral ODA 2012 2313 2104 4515 1273 2576 305 5072 11899 12426 Multilateral ODA 745 895 2541 711 769 1118 11349 16584 1778 18202

UN Agencies 966 398 EC 9376 1707

Unspecified 1007 16584 1778 734

Donor Slovak Republic Amount Constant Prices (2006 $ millions) Type of flow Net Disbursements Year 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Type of aid ODA 1445 1172 1648 1192 2084 3227 6032 5511 5546 ODAGNI 004 003 004 002 005 007 012 01 009 Bilateral ODA 805 342 675 664 1177 1229 3301 2475 2265 Multilateral ODA 64 83 973 528 905 1997 273 3036 3281

Appendix 2 Tables 1 ndash 4 Top 3 Recipients of Bilateral ODA Donor Czech Republic Amount Constant Prices (2006) $ million Type of flow ODA net disbursements

Year Country $ million 1998 1 Palestinian-Administered Territory 166

2 Vietnam 070 3 Bosnia-Herzegovina 053 Former Yugoslavia (total) 102

1999 1 Palestinian-Administered Territory 150

2 China 066 3 Bosnia-Herzegovina 055 Former Yugoslavia (total) 139

2000 1 Palestinian-Administered Territory 169 2 Mongolia 094 3 Bosnia-Herzegovina 092 Former Yugoslavia (total) 145

2001 1 Serbia 518 2 Vietnam 177 3 India 197 4 Moldova 171 Former Yugoslavia (total) 829

2002 1 Former Yugoslavia (total) 1100 2 India 221 3 Georgia 153 Former Yugoslavia (total) 1290

2003 1 Iraq 5250 2 Afghanistan 804 3 Serbia amp Montenegro 545 Former Yugoslavia (total) 1440

2004 1 Iraq 1568 2 Serbia amp Montenegro 790 3 Afghanistan 698 Former Yugoslavia (total) 1090

2005 1 Iraq 872 2 Serbia amp Montenegro 689 3 Ukraine 495 Former Yugoslavia (total) 1050

18

18

Donor Czech Republic Amount Constant Prices (2006) $ million Type of flow ODA net disbursements

Year Country $ million 2006 1 Iraq 118

2 Serbia 6 3 Afghanistan 42 Former Yugoslavia (total) 106

Donor Hungary Amount Constant Prices (2006) $ million Type of flow ODA net disbursements

Year Country $ million 2003 1 Serbia 305

2 Vietnam 052 3 Croatia 054 Former Yugoslavia (total) 55

2004 1 Bosnia-Herzegovina 1920 2 Serbia 332 3 Iraq 181 4 Afghanistan 166 Former Yugoslavia (total) 2314

2005 1 Serbia 1012 2 Yemen 986 3 Tanzania 941 Former Yugoslavia (total) 1023

2006 1 Iraq 6715 2 Afghanistan 039 3 Vietnam 031

Former Yugoslavia (total) 059

Donor Poland Amount Constant Prices (2006) $ million Type of flow ODA net disbursements

Year Country $ million 1998 1 Bosnia-Herzegovina 373

2 Vietnam 326 3 Kazakhstan 214 Former Yugoslavia (total) 419

19

19

Donor Poland Amount Constant Prices (2006) $ million Type of flow ODA net disbursements

Year Country $ million 1999 1 Bosnia-Herzegovina 355

2 Macedonia 282 3 Kazakhstan 234 Former Yugoslavia (total) 897

2000 1 Argentina 519 2 Kazakhstan 316 3 Vietnam 164 Former Yugoslavia (total) 174

2001 1 Yemen 347 2 Kazakhstan 256 3 Vietnam 232 Former Yugoslavia (total) 114

2002 1 China 528 2 Kazakhstan 24 3 Vietnam 044 Former Yugoslavia (total) 092

2003 1 Serbia 152 2 Kazakhstan 24 3 China 202 Former Yugoslavia (total) 157

2004 1 Ethiopia 107 2 Serbia 997 3 China 19 4 Kazakhstan 162 Former Yugoslavia (total) 104

2005 1 Serbia 198 2 Ukraine 651 3 Uzbekistan 63 Former Yugoslavia (total) 204

2006 1 Angola 924 2 Ukraine 651 3 Belarus 677 Former Yugoslavia (total) 175

20

20

Donor Slovak Republic Amount Constant Prices (2006) $ million Type of flow ODA net disbursements

Year $ million 2002 1 Former Yugoslavia (total) 083

2 Sudan 018 3 Kenya 016

2003 1 Former Yugoslavia (total) 307 2 Iraq 113 3 Kenya 039

2004 1 Former Yugoslavia (total) 364 2 Hong Kong China 158 3 Georgia 054 4 Afghanistan 043

2005 1 Sudan 1857 2 Afghanistan 474 3 Former Yugoslavia (total) 408

2006 1 Sudan 1498 2 Afghanistan 154 3 Mongolia 064

21

21

Reference Alesina A amp Dollar D (2000) Who Gives Foreign Aid to Whom and Why Journal of

Economic Growth 5 33-63 Bearce D H amp Tirone D C (2007) Foreign Aid Recipient Growth and the Strategic Goals

of Donor Governments manuscript for APSA 2007 Bertheacutelemy J-C amp Tichit A (2004) Bilateral donors aid allocations decisions - a three-

dimensional panel analysis International Review of Economics and Finance Caritas (2006) Vyrocni zprava 2005 Praha Ceska katolicka charita CEC (2006) Communication for the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament

Financing for Development and Aid Effectiveness ndash The challenges of scaling up EU aid 2006 ndash 2008

Granell F (2005) Can the Fifth Enlargement Weaken the EUs Development Cooperation Jean MonnetRobert Schuman Paper Series 5(24 August)

Isenman P (1976) Biases in Aid Allocations Against Poorer and Larger Countries World Development 44 631-641 King M Exnerova V Blazek O Eds (2006) Annual Report 2005 Prague People In Need

Lancaster C (2007) Foreign Aid Chicago and London The University of Chicago Press Maizels A amp Nissanke M K (1984) Motivations for Aid to Developing Countries World

Development 12(9) 870-900 Malkin B amp agencies (2006) Poland to Send More Troops to Afghanistan Guardian

Unlimited September 14 Retrieved 2202008 from wwwguardiancoukafghanistanstory0187212500html

McKinlay R D amp Little R (1977) A Foreign Policy Model of US Bilateral Aid Allocations World Politics 30 58-86

McKinlay R D amp Little R (1978i) The French Aid Relationship A Foreign Policy Model of the Disribution of French Bilateral Aid 1964-1970 Development and Change 9 459-478

McKinlay R D amp Little R (1978ii) A Foreign-Policy Model of the Distribution of British Billateral Aid1960-1970 British Journal of Political Science 8 313-331

McKinlay R D amp Little R (1978iii) The German Aid Relationship A Test of the Recipient Need and the Donor Interest 1960-1970 European Journal of Political Research 6 235-257

McKinlay R D amp Little R (1979) The US Aid Relationship A Test of the Recipient Need and the Donor Interest Model Political Studies 27 236-250

McNamara S (2007) ldquoThe PolishndashAmerican Relationship Deepening and Strengthening the Alliancerdquo Backgrounder 2010 February 27 1-13

Migliorisi S (2003) The Consequences of Enlargement for Development Policy (a report for European Commission)

Moravcsik A amp Vaduchova A M (2003) National Interest State Power and EU Enlargement East European Politics and Societies 17(1) 42-57

Morgenthau H (1962) A Political Theory of Foreign Aid The American Political Science Review 56(2) 301-309

Neumayer E (2003) The Pattern of Aid Giving London and New York Routledge OECD (2008) Glossary of Statistical Terms Retrieved 5282008 from

httpstatsoecdorgglossarydetailaspID=1176 OECD (2008) Development Cooperation Report 2007 (Summary) OECD-DAC (2007) DACs Glossary Retrieved 2202008 from

Schraeder P J Hook S W amp Taylor B (1998) ldquoClarifying the Foreign Aid Puzzle A

httpwwwoecdorgglossary02586en_2649_33721_1965693_1_1_1_100html1965586

22

22

Comparison of American Japanese French and Swedish Aid Flowsrdquo World Politics 50(2) 294-323

Snyder J (2004) One World Rival Theories Foreign Policy (NovDec) 52-62 Theacuterien J-P amp Noeumll A (2000) ldquoPolitical Parties and Foreign Aidrdquo American Political Science

Review 94 (March)(1) 151-162 UNDP (2008) The Human Development Report 20072008 Technical Note UN World Bank (2006) Measuring Progress in Least Developed Countries a statistical profile Waltz K (1979) Theory of International Politics New York Random House

  • R Schuman
    • Vol 5 No 19
    • December 2008
      • Introduction
      • This research aims to contribute to understanding why countries give foreign aid It focuses on the new donors of Central-Eastern Europe (the Czech Republic Hungary Poland and Slovakia) and the Baltic states (Estonia Latvia Lithuania) These cou

2

EUMA European Union Miami Analysis (EUMA) Special Series is a service of analytical essays on current trend setting issues and developing news about the European Union These papers are produced by the Jean Monnet Chair in cooperation with the Miami-Florida European Union Center of Excellence (a partnership of the University of Miami and Florida International University) as an outreach service for the academic business and diplomatic communities Among the topics to be included in the series the following are suggested The collapse of the Constitution and its rescue Turkey prospects of membership Immigration crisis and cultural challenges Security threats and responses The EU and Latin America The EU as a model and reference in the world The Common Agricultural Policy and other public subsidies The euro and the dollar EU image in the United States

These topics form part of the pressing agenda of the EU and represent the multifaceted and complex nature of the European integration process These papers also seek to highlight the internal and external dynamics which influence the workings of the EU and its relationship with the rest the world Miami - Florida European Union Center Jean Monnet Chair Staff University of Miami Joaquiacuten Roy (Director) 1000 Memorial Drive Astrid B Boening (Associate Director) 101 Ferreacute Building Mariacutea Lorca (Associate Editor) Coral Gables FL 33124-2231 Maxime Lariveacute (Research Assistant) Phone 305-284-3266 Fax (305) 284 4406 Web wwwmiamiedueucenter Florida International University Elisabeth Prugl (FIU Co-Director) Inter-American Jean Monnet Editorial Board Carlos Hakansson Universidad de Piura Peruacute Finn Laursen Dalhousie University Halifax Canada Michel Levi-Coral Universidad Andina Simoacuten Boliacutevar Quito Ecuador Joseacute Luis Martiacutenez-Estaycedil Universidad de los Andes Santiago de Chile Chile Feacutelix Pentildea Universidad Nacional de Tres de Febrero Buenos Aires Argentina Stephan Sberro Instituto Tecnoloacutegico Autoacutenomo de Meacutexico Eric Tremolada Universidad del Externado de Colombia Bogotaacute Colombia

3

AID PATTERNS IN CENTRAL EASTERN EUROPElowast

Markeacuteta Vavrečkovaacute

clubs Abstract Central-Eastern European (CEE) and Baltic countries

have undergone significant political and economic transformations since the 1990s One transition that has not yet received sufficient scholarly attention is the shift in regional aid flows Starting in the mid 1990s this trend saw CEE and Baltic countries emerge as donors of foreign aid from a prior condition as net recipients Why have these new democracies strived to make that change to systematically begin to give foreign aid What are the patterns of aid giving that they follow

Evidence suggests that all the donor countries in the CEE and Baltic regions behaved similarly to each other as they institutionalized their own aid flows patterns This research hypothesizes that 1) national governments have determined their overall levels of aid spending in response to pressures and incentives from international organizations 2) political and economic interests play a key role in determining top recipients of bilateral aid Thus donor interest overrides recipient need

Introduction This research aims to contribute to understanding why countries give foreign aid It focuses on the new donors of Central-Eastern Europe (the Czech Republic Hungary Poland and Slovakia) and the Baltic states (Estonia Latvia Lithuania) These countries represent a unique set of donors among the emerging donor community They have all undergone major political and economic changes since the late 1980rsquos They have democratized and they have transformed their economies from centrally planned to market driven 1

This paper seeks to explain the onset of aid giving Why did the countries in the sample start to dole out aid Second I look at the overall levels of Official Development Assistance (ODA) from the CEE and the Baltic and examine the ratio between multilateral and bilateral aid Third I examine bilateral aid flows by looking at the aid recipients I Donor Interest vs Recipient Need

Why countries give aid is a question that has occupied scholars for decades (Alesina Dollar 2000) Most scholars have agreed that governmental decisions about aid disbursements have been shaped by a combination of self-interest and altruistic motivations (Maizels Nissanke 1984 Neumayer 2003 Bertheacutelemy Tichit 2004 Bearce Tirone 2007 etc) International relations theories give support to both sets of motivations While both classical realism and neo-realism

lowast A modified version of this paper was presented at Northeastern Political Science Association conference Boston November 15 2008 This paper is a part of my dissertation project clubs Markeacuteta Vavrečkovaacute is a PhD candidate in the Department of Political Science at Northeastern University in Boston She holds an MA from Charles University Prague and has studied at Universiteacute Luis Pasteur Strasbourg Ms Vavrečkovaacute has taught undergraduate courses in Comparative Politics International Relations and Social Policy at Northeastern University Charles University and at the Global Institute for Leadership and Civic Development in Bloomington Indiana She has also been a researcher at the European Parliament and at the Czech Development Agency

4

center on donor self-interest idealism provides a set of explanations revolving around the needs of recipients

In line with traditional realist thinking Hans Morgenthau suggests that not all interests abroad can be secured by either military or diplomatic means This is when foreign aid comes into play Commercial and security interests can sometimes be better served by providing foreign aid than by using force (Morgenthau 1962 p301) The neorealist perspective further suggests that statesrsquo foreign policy can be analyzed when looking at the international structure This structure works as a constraint on state behavior According to Kenneth Waltz states act in a certain manner because the international system forces them to do so (Waltz 1979) Countries are seeking to build political coalitions in order to insure their security (Snyder 2004) Foreign aid allocations whether symbolic or with a high impact factor on the recipient can have a strengthening effect on coalition cohesion if performed by all members of a coalition Foreign aid allocations can have especially positive effects on the standing of the weaker members in a coalition

According to idealism foreign aid allocations are a response to social and economic needs in less developed countries is Poverty alleviation has become one the most pressing global issues in the 21st

Schraeder

century (Millennium Declaration 2000) International cooperation is on the rise To idealists the realist concept of international relations based on competition ignores such realities ( Hook and Taylor 1998 p298)

This research attempts to determine whether the realistneorealist or idealist thinking prevails in governmental decisions regarding aid allocation from the CEE and Baltic countries It recognizes that governmental decisions are neither purely selfish nor purely altruistic but it seeks to parse out the relative importance of realistneorealist variables and idealist variables II International Environment vs Domestic Arena Much of the literature has been concerned with understanding governmental decision regarding foreign aid flows Yet there is a lack of research regarding the process shaping governmental decisions What domestic and international institutions influence governments when allocating foreign aid resources and more importantly which variables shape the onset of foreign aid

On the international level the influence of international organizations is paramount In particular the UN and the EU have had great influence on CEE and Baltic countries These organizations have in numerous occasions used mechanisms of coercion and stimulation in order to influence policy outcomes in the examined emerging donor countries (Moravcsik Vaduchova 2003)

In addition to formal international organizations being a part of an alliance could have influenced new democracies in their decision to become donors The relatively small size of the CEE and Baltic countries their geographical position in the center of Europe and their recent experience with oppressive foreign powers make security concerns in these countries highly topical Once part of the Soviet Block CEE and Baltic countries realigned their security alliance with Western democratic powers However loyalty to the new allies goes beyond formal institutional structures such as NATO Countries usually coordinate their foreign policy positions regarding important international issues in accordance with the Western alliance Foreign aid disbursements consistent with the interests of the new coalition can be an expression of support for the coalitionrsquos efforts and simultaneously a symbolic safeguard for ensuring a donorrsquos own security

Thirdly individual countries could pressure for the establishment of aid flows Particularly the CEE and Baltic countries have been a focus of US foreign policy because of their strategic position between the advanced democracies and Russia For example as part of its missile defense shield design the US has declared its intention to plant a dozen anti-missile warheads in Poland and to place an anti-ballistic radar in the Czech Republic (Gordon 2006) It is

5

reasonable to expect that the US could also pressure CEE and Baltic governments in order to obtain specific aid flow configurations more in tune with its strategic preferences

Lancaster claims that at the beginning the 21st

Lancaster claims that international organizations increasingly promote the solidarity of advanced countries with the less developed world and that such organizations are persistent their

century aid has increasingly become a norm supported by domestic governments and a substantial part of their constituencies in advanced democracies Western donors no longer question whether they should give aid or not (Lancaster 2006) Emerging donors in the sample have undergone a successful transition from authoritarianism to democracy Onset of aid giving can mean that the new democracies have adopted the values of international solidarity together with democratic standards Recognition that aid giving is a standard adopted by advanced countries can also have a distinct effect on the new democracies These countries are aiming to ldquocatch-uprdquo with their Western counterparts For example typical benchmarks for assessing progress in the two examined regions are economic performance levels of social spending and standards of living in the old EU member states From this catching up perspective national governments can decide to mimic the activities of the ldquorich country clubrdquo such as aid giving so that they give the impression of being already ldquoinrdquo In this case aid giving would not be a reflection of a change in domestic norms and values but it would rather be an example of symbolic activity performed in order to gain status and international recognition

On the domestic level several actors might have contributed to the onset of aid giving First the newly established non-governmental sector started to play a role in the CEE and Baltic countries after the collapse of communism A multitude of philanthropic organizations has emerged in the 1990s and they have attempted to lobby their governments to promote their priorities For example NGOs involved in humanitarian and developmental activities in the CEE and Baltic countries have united in national umbrella associations in order to facilitate policy dialogue with governments (Migliorisi 2003 p31) This suggests a substantial commitment to influence policy making

The collapse of the Soviet Block created a potential for establishing commercial relations virtually anywhere in the world Governments around the world mostly support their private businesses in establishing commercial ties Foreign aid is sometimes used as a tool for facilitating these commercial interests For instance governments can give out aid so the recipient country is more willing to accept donor exports Pressures from private companies could be an important factor contributing to the onset of aid

A development agenda is being adopted and pursued by political parties in Western democracies For example Theacuterien and Noeumll argue that within the OECD countries social-democratic parties have an effect on a countryrsquos level of development assistance (Theacuterien Noeumll 2000) Similarly a foreign aid agenda could be incorporated into political programs of political parties in the emerging donor countries and could have influenced governmental decisions

Finally values held by domestic populations can also influence aid giving Democratic transition has had an impact on the preferences and norms held by individuals in the emerging donor countries Widespread free mass media reach new economic ties and extended possibilities to travel abroad have shaped the perceptions of ordinary citizens toward their countriesrsquo role in the globalized world Being exposed to international affairs also allowed citizens to fully develop their opinions on the role of their countries vis-agrave-vis less developed countries All these new phenomena could have materialized into a support for aid giving

Understanding the onset stage is especially important today when total aid flows have been globally on the rise since 2003 (OECD 2008) and the community of donor countries is growing In the mid-1990rsquos when CEE and Baltic countries started to allocate foreign aid Korea Thailand and Turkey began their transformation into donors of foreign aid as well Later Arab countries like Kuwait Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates joined the donor club Currently China and Russia are also establishing themselves as donors

6

efforts to push more national governments to provide more aid In this environment aid giving has become an international standard for governments in rich countries (Lancaster 2006 p 5) This hypothesis presents a dynamic deserving rigorous testing in the case of emerging donors as well given that most of these countries have undergone economic growth in the recent years This project is an attempt to test the hypothesis particularly in the Central European region III Official Development Assistance (ODA) Foreign aid refers to transfers among governments and between governments and international organizations It can be in the form of cash (grants or concessional loans) in kind (eg food aid) or in the form of debt relief The Development Assistance Committee (DAC) of the OECD uses the official development assistance (ODA) indicator to measure foreign aid flows (OECD 2008) ODA flows are divided into two basic categories multilateral aid (transfers from governments to international organizations) and bilateral aid (transfers from governments to governments)

The aim of ODA transfers is to contribute to economic development and welfare ODA does not include military expenditures subsidies to promote private investment funding for anti-terrorism or other law-enforcement programs bribes costs of representation or private charitable giving (OECD 2007) It is important to keep in mind that foreign aid differs from humanitarian aid which is typically provided in response to humanitarian crises The primary objective of humanitarian aid is to save lives whereas development aid focuses on improving socio-economic conditions ODA is typically measured in US dollars ($) or as a percentage of gross national income (GNI)2

2 The OECD defines GNI as GDP less primary incomes payable to non- resident units plus primary incomes receivable from non-resident units (OECD Glossary of Statistical Terms 2008)

The DAC collects data from OECD members and affiliates regarding ODA flows

Although CEE and Baltic countries are not yet DAC members they have adjusted their national statistics according to DAC methodology and they submit annual reports to the organization Comparable data for the Czech Republic Hungary Poland and the Slovak Republic is available starting in the mid-1990s through the OECD database

This paper aims to reveal trends in overall aid giving among emerging CEE and Baltic donors Absolute ODA and allocations relative to GNI are presented Further I focus on ratios between bilateral and multilateral aid in the case of the Czech Republic Hungary Poland and the Slovak Republic Top bilateral aid recipients for each of these donor countries will be identified Eventually I examine the onset stage in the case of the Czech Republic IV Findings IV1 Total Foreign Aid In all seven examined countries ODAGNI ratios have grown between the years 2001 ndash 2006 The most radical growth can be seen in the case of Hungary and Poland where the ODAGNI ratio grew five times during the course of five years

7

Table 1 ODAGNI ODAGNI ratio (in ) 2001 2006 Poland 002 01 Czech Republic 005 011 Slovak Republic 006 0085 Hungary 002 01 Lithuania 002 0064 Latvia 002 006 Estonia 001 006 Migliorisi Stephano (2003) The Consequences of Enlargement for Development Policy CEC (2006) Communication for the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament ldquoFinancing for Development and Aid Effectiveness ndash The challenges of scaling up EU aid 2006 ndash 2008rdquo

The DAC offers detailed ODA statistics for the Czech Republic Hungary Poland and

the Slovak Republic (Grafs 1-4 source data Appendix 1) The data reveal that total ODA spending grew only incrementally between the years 1998-2002 Substantial growth is traceable since 2003 I attribute this pattern to the process of enlargement in the European Union (EU)

The Czech Republic Hungary Poland and the Slovak Republic together with the three Baltic countries and Cyprus Malta and Slovenia joined the European Union in May of 2004 Prior to accession these countries had to harmonize their national laws and practices according to the European legislature Foreign aid was one of the numerous areas subject to negotiation between the acceding states and the European Commission The applicants agreed to join the EUrsquos development and humanitarian aid framework on the date of their accession EU membership gave the new members the possibility to take part in decision-making on the European level 3

Data indicate that ODAGNI continued to grow in the following years approaching the commitment levels made to the EU Increase in ODA disbursements under EU pressure was

However it has also brought new commitments The countries were asked to restructure their national foreign aid framework to increase development spending and to start paying contributions to the EUrsquos foreign aid budget (European Development Fund)

When examining ODAGNI levels the EU influence is evident In 2003 a year prior the EU accession ODA disbursements double in case of Slovakia and almost doubled in the case of the Czech Republic and Hungary Poland witnessed steep growth of the ODAGNI ratio in the following year

As a new EU member the Czech Republic Hungary Poland and Slovakia took part in the European Council negotiations of 2005 Together with other 20 EU members the countries made a commitment to strive for a goal of 056 of ODAGNI per year However more specific and realistic commitments based on economic potential were negotiated on a country grouping basis Old members committed themselves to 05 of ODAGNI per year The ten new members set a goal of annual 017 of ODAGNI

3 Detailed discussion of the harmonization process and its possible implications for the EU can be found in Granell F (2005)

8

Graphs 1- 4 Bilateral vs Multilateral ODA

Czech Republic Bilateral vs Multilateral ODA

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Year

Multilateral ODA

Bilateral ODA

Slovak Republic Bilateral vs Multilateral ODA

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Year

Multilateral ODABilateral ODA

Poland Bilateral vs Multilateral ODA

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Year

Multilateral ODABilateral ODA

Hungary Bilateral vs Multilateral ODA

0

2040

60

80

100120

140

160

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Year

Multilateral ODA

Bilateral ODA

9

probably opposed by some segments within the new membersrsquo governments Nevertheless membership in the EU was a long-term economic and geopolitical interest of the Thus sacrificing a small fraction of their GNI as foreign aid was a minor cost compared to the benefits of EU membership

However experience from previous waves of enlargement shows that the logic of long-term benefits is oftentimes forgotten once applicants are in the Union 4

Another noticeable trend is that Iraq and Afghanistan have become major recipients of Czech foreign aid since in 2003 The two countries received almost 50 of total Czech bilateral aid in 2003 The flows have decreased since then but Iraq still obtains the most aid of all bilateral recipients Diplomatic purposes behind these disbursements are clear The Czech Republic entered into an alliance with the US and Western European powers after the end of the Cold War

Thus it is likely to expect that after accession new members would relax their commitment to EU membership pre-conditions This trend can be perhaps already witnessed in the case of the Czech Republic Hungary and Slovakia where ODAGNI ratio has decreased slightly in 2007 IV2 Bilateral Aid Are the bilateral allocations of the new donors driven by their interests or the recipients needs McKinlay and Little used these two independent variables to explain aid allocation for the first time in the 1970s (McKinlay Little 1977 1978iiiiii 1979) and they continue to be the most standardized variables today (eg Bearce Tirone 2007) Numerous studies have operationalized the variables in different ways Nevertheless most scholars have included political economic and cultural aspects within the donor interest variable (Neumayer 2003 p 19) I do the same in this research Further I operationalize recipient need based on identification with the group of Least Developed Countries This classification takes into account per capita income and combines it with quality of life indicators (UN World Bank 2006)

In the following section I discuss bilateral flows allocated by the Czech Hungarian Polish and Slovak governments OECD database does not include any data for disbursements from Estonia Latvia and Lithuania Czech Republic receives most attention in this section due to the availability of most detailed data and my most immediate experience with aid management in the country

In the Czech Republic bilateral aid was traditionally dispersed among many recipients in the period of 1998-2000 This dispersion happened mainly because ten ministries used to be responsible for project implementation (Migliorisi 2003) There were attempts to streamline the number of countries receiving aid by identifying eight long-term priority and two mid-term priority countries Yet the effort was not concentrated enough until the late-2000s For example the country carried out over 100 projects in about 35 countries in 2005

Starting in 2001 states of the former Yugoslavia have received more intensive attention According to the amount of total aid received Bosnia-Herzegovina Serbia and Moldova ranked among the top recipients (Appendix 2 Table 1) None of these countries belongs to the group of least developed countries thus the hypothesis of prioritizing based on recipient need can be rejected There are two possible alternative explanations for this choice of recipients First the former Yugoslavia is a region in Southern Europe thus geographical proximity is clearly an advantage when implementing the project Further Slavic populations prevail in all post-Yugoslavian countries The linguistic familiarity can additionally facilitate project management and effectiveness A second alternative explanation suggests that the Czech Republic started to be deeply engaged in former Yugoslavian countries because of the pressure of Czech NGOs Section IV3 will further discuss these hypotheses

4 Expansion of this idea can be found for example in Moravcsik A amp Vaduchova A M (2003) ldquoNational Interest State Power and EU Enlargementrdquo East European Politics and Societies 17(1) 42-57

10

Providing resources for operations conducted by its allies is a most efficient symbol of political support However in the case of Afghanistan altruistic motivations are also present since the country belongs to the group of least developed countries (UN World Bank 2006)

Hungary displays similar yet less distinct patterns than the Czech Republic (Appendix 2 Table 2) Former Yugoslavian countries remain the primary recipients of Hungarian bilateral ODA However Hungary provided a large proportion of its foreign aid to in 2004 and 2006 This timing parallels the military operations of Hungaryrsquos allies in these two countries In 2005 allocations to both Afghanistan and Iraq were only marginal ($ 007 and $ 038 million respectively) and this represents a deviation deserving further qualitative exploration The Polish case displays similar patterns in some regards yet it substantially differs in others The former Yugoslavia has been the highest recipient of Polish between the years 1998 ndash 2006 Nevertheless Polandrsquos disbursements to Iraq and Afghanistan have been rather negligible (Appendix 2 Table 3) This is a rather surprising trend Out of the seven examined countries Poland has traditionally been the closest ally to the US In 2005 President George W Bush asserted that Poland has been a fantastic ally (White House in McNamara 2007 p1) Poland is one of the four leading countries in the coalition for the War on Terror alongside Australia Britain and the US The Polish government initially sent 900 troops to Iraq In 2006 it committed an additional 900 troops to fight the insurgency in Afghanistan (Malkin and agencies 2006) Thus it would be reasonable to expect that US ndash Polish alliance would be reflected in the Polish preferences for top aid recipients However the evidence shows the opposite Iraq and Afghanistan received in 2006 only $047 million and $055 million respectively which refutes the hypothesis of political alliance between the US and Poland influencing aid disbursements Furthermore Poland shows a consistent commitment to Kazakhstan a former Soviet Republic With an annual PPP GDP of $ 10400 and 73 growth rate (CIA Fact sheet) Kazakhstan does not belong to the group of least developed countries Thus I refute altruistic explanation for this commitment On the contrary I hypothesize that this commitment is related to the fact that Kazakhstan possesses enormous fossil fuel reserves and plentiful supplies of other minerals and metals which could be potentially beneficial to the Polish economy In 2005 and 2006 Poland allocated relatively substantial sums to Belarus Ukraine and Uzbekistan three other post-Soviet countries It is too early to state whether these allocations represent a major trend However a potential explanation for these allocations could be a mix of economic considerations (especially in the case of Uzbekistan) connected with geographical proximity and cultural similarity For Slovakia as is the case with the other three new donors the primary focus has been the former Yugoslavia Afghanistan established itself as one of the major recipients of Slovak aid between 2004 and 2006 A combination of donor political interests and recipient need is probably reflected in this trend Afghanistan has been a major target for Western intervention and at the same time it belongs to the group of least developed countries Sudan has been a recipient of Slovak aid between the years of 2002 and 2006 which comprises the entire period of recorded Slovak bilateral disbursements In 2005 and 2006 Sudan became the biggest recipient of Slovak aid substantially ahead of other recipients Slovakia does not have any political nor economic interests in Sudan Sudan is a longstanding member of the least developed countries group thus it is of great need of foreign assistance Slovaks allocations seem to be responding to this need

In conclusion all four examined countries display a clear common pattern in their focus on the states from the former Yugoslavia which is probably motivated by geographical and cultural proximity While the Czech Republic Hungary and Slovakia strengthen their political alliance with Western powers thorough generous allocations to Afghanistan and Iraq Poland focuses on Kazakhstan a resourceful country once a part of the Soviet block Slovak allocations to Sudan seem to indicate altruistic motivations

11

IV3 Czech Republic Case Study Capacity Building What were the forces that shaped the onset stage of aid giving Has the institutional framework of the new economic policy towards developing countries developed as a result of domestic or international incentives

In 1995 the Czech Republic became a member of the OECD which fosters cooperation among developed democracies Within the organization the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) aims at improving governmental policies towards developing countries The Czech Republic obtained the status of an observer in 1996 which allowed it to participate in DAC activities without partaking in any negotiations

The DAC introduced Czech public sector administrators to its methods of collecting information on foreign aid flows in the second part of the 1990s Since then the country has adopted the concept of official development assistance as the principal unit for measuring its foreign aid disbursements Data based on the OECD methodology are available for the first time for the year 1999 Czech ODA in this year was $ 2642 million or 0027 of the GNI

In 1999 the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) launched a series of projects which aimed to create national capacities for international development cooperation Several administrators were trained in order to understand foreign aid concepts and managerial tools Further Czech administrators were able to visit developing countries and learn about the needs of potential aid recipients The UNDP financed the founding of the Development Center The Center was created outside of governmental structures at a research institute for international relations The main objective of the Center has been to carry out consultative services to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs which forms governmental strategies for foreign aid In doing so the Center has helped with the design of national policy for cooperation with developing countries The UNDP ceased capacity-building activities in 2004 just as the Czech government was about to enter the European Union The total of contributions from the UNDP towards Czech capacity-building has reached over USD 1 million over the course of five years The Czech government complemented the UNDP budget with an additional USD 012 million

In 2002 the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) which has a strong international reputation as a foreign aid agency launched a program for strengthening ODA delivery agencies in the Czech Republic Hungary Poland and Slovakia This five-year long project aimed to spend USD 15 million in order to increase the amount and quality of assistance given by new donors to developing countries The project has been divided into two phases The focus in the first phase was institutional support and capacity building The second phase was centered on trilateral cooperation when the CIDA and a new donor conduct projects in developing countries together The first phase in which the Czech Republic received training and technical assistance finished in 2004 when the CIDA declared the Czech institutional capacities as sufficient The second phase of trilateral cooperation finished in 2007 In 2008 the Development Center became a Development Agency fully comparable to those of OECDDAC members

The impact of CIDArsquos assistance on capacity building has been smaller than the UNDPrsquos impact Most of the resources allocated for the Czech Republic were further used for projects in developing countries However the collaboration of Czech administrators with their Canadian counterparts in project management led to significant know-how transfers for the Czech specialists

The aforementioned evidence shows that the initial setup for foreign aid management in the Czech Republic was heavily shaped by international institutions The OECD through the DAC provided expertise in policy design and introduced basic concepts used for aid processing The UNDP and CIDA financed national capacity building These organizations trained Czech

12

administrators to become experts in foreign aid and also were the force behind the origin of new institutional capacities which are now concentrated in the Czech Development Agency and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Bilateral Aid I have identified the states from the former Yugoslavia as the biggest recipients of Czech ODA In this section I claim that the Czech government has consistently been engaged in these countries because of pressure from domestic NGOrsquos

People in Need (PIN) is by far the largest non-governmental organization providing relief aid and development assistance in the Czech Republic It is one of the largest organizations of its kind in post-communist Europe and has administered projects in thirty-seven countries over the past fourteen years The annual budget of PIN in 2005 was 109 million EURO ($ 137 million) (King Exnerova Blazek eds 2006)

PIN began in 1992 when dissidents and leaders of the Czechoslovak Velvet Revolution teamed with conflict journalists working for the Czech Public Service Television They aimed to provide humanitarian aid to the civil war torn region of Nagorno-Karabakh (former USSR) Since then the activities of the organization have proliferated Although the organization works in fourteen countries in Asia Europe and Africa the main focus of its work has remained in the countries of the former Soviet Union or the former Soviet bloc The organization has been primarily involved in Ukraine Moldova and Tajikistan Throughout the nineties it provided robust assistance during the humanitarian interventions in the war-torn countries of the former Yugoslavia and later during the reconstruction of these areas According to PINrsquos long-term plan the organization would like to further contribute to the reconstruction of the countries of the former Yugoslavia The cultural similarities between the Czech Republic and the region of the Balkan should facilitate such assistance

Caritas is another organization working in the field of foreign humanitarian and development assistance Because the main objective of the organization is provision of social services in the Czech Republic the magnitude of its foreign projects is limited In 2005 the resources allocated to the activities abroad reached $ 16 million which was approximately one tenth of PINrsquos budget (Caritas 2006) Throughout the nineties the organization worked in Chechnya Georgia Ukraine Moldova and the countries of the Balkan which have received priority throughout the 1990s and in the beginning of the 21st century

Both organizations started their activities in former USSR countries and in the Balkan prior to the intensification of governmental flows into these countries The projects were primarily funded by donations or through multilateral agencies Later on governmental funding played a substantial role It is reasonable to expect that this change has occurred due to pressure from these organizations The government might have been easily willing to accommodate the NGOs as their experience in the regions ensured the quality and sustainability of projects Multilateral Aid Czech multilateral ODA disbursements (Graph 5) have followed a similar pattern as total ODA (Graph 1 p10) Multilateral ODA remained rather constant between the years 2000 ndash 2003 Starting in 2004 a dramatic increase occurred I have attributed this growth to entry into the EU in section IV1 This explanation is further reinforced when looking at the specific recipients of multilateral aid The European Union is by far the largest recipient following the year of the countryrsquos accession into the Union The importance of other recipients is decreasing or remains constant as in the case of the UN

13

Graph 5 Czech Republic Multilateral ODA Disbursements

Czech Republic Multilateral ODA Disbursements

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Year

UnspecifiedEC

UN

V Preliminary Conclusion When relating the findings to the theoretical framework outlined in the introductory sections the following conclusions can be made First the case of the Czech Republic suggests that the onset of aid giving has primarily been driven by the international arena Intergovernmental and overseas governmental organizations provided the financial support necessary for capacity building They have also offered substantial transfer of foreign aid know-how Domestic actors such as political parties or non- governmental sector have not played a major role at this stage

Second evidence for the Czech Republic Hungary Poland and Slovakia reveals that the EU an international actor has played a major role in determining current ODA levels Significant growth of total ODA is evident only after the EU mandated and presented it as one of many conditions for EU accession The underlying influence of the EU also manifests itself in the multilateral aid disbursements of the Czech Republic where the vast majority of the funds go to the European Union budget

Third several trends show up when analyzing bilateral allocations For the Czech Republic Hungary Poland and Slovakia post-Yugoslavian nations have been primary recipients of foreign aid Pragmatism rather than altruism derived from recipient need is probably behind this pattern Geographical proximity cultural similarity and a shared experience of a communist past are factors potentially leading to effectiveness in aid allocations The case of the Czech Republic suggests that the non-governmental sector played a constitutive role in prioritizing former Yugoslavian countries

Starting mid-2000s the prioritizing of Afghanistan and Iraq in the Czech Hungarian and Slovak aid disbursements implies that the donors seek to strengthen their political coalition with Western powers Yet donor interest is combined with recipient need in the case of Afghanistan since the country is included on the list of least developed countries

Polish bilateral aid has also been strongly shaped by donor interest but one of a different nature As the country focuses on Kazakhstan natural resources endowed country with rapidly growing GNI economic interest is paramount

Lastly Slovak focus on Sudan in the last couple of years could represent a genuine altruistic response to recipient needs as Sudan belongs to the group of least developed countries (UN World Bank 2006) However it is too soon to conclude if allocations to Sudan form a long-term pattern or is they are merely isolated events without a solid institutional anchor

14

Overall donorsrsquo interest prevails over recipient need when analyzing bilateral allocations Yet different interests motivate the direction of bilateral disbursements Evidence suggests that political and economic motivations are the most frequent ones Recipient need is being reflected primarily when combined with donor interest Isolated instances of altruism occur sporadically

15

Appendix 1 Tables 1 ndash 4 Total Bilateral and Multilateral ODA

Donor Czech Republic Amount Constant Prices (2006 $ millions) Type of flow Net Disbursements Year 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Type of aid ODA 2769 2642 3173 4881 7004 11896 12419 14492 16086 15504 ODAGNI 003 003 003 005 007 011 011 011 012 011 Bilateral ODA 1006 1185 1249 2753 4832 10558 7288 6906 777 7377 Multilateral ODA 1763 1457 1924 2128 2173 1339 5131 7587 8316 8127

UN Agencies 1034 698 634 477 524 57 EC 3854 6619 6874 7167

Unspecified 1924 2128 1139 641 643 491 918 39

Donor Hungary Amount Constant Prices (2006 $ millions) Type of flow Net Disbursements Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Type of aid ODA 2501 716 9866 14949 7487 ODAGNI 003 007 011 014 007 Bilateral ODA 1637 3623 3889 8434 2813 Multilateral ODA 866 3536 5978 6515 4674

16

Donor Poland Amount Constant Prices (2006 $ millions) Type of flow Net Disbursements Year 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Type of aid ODA 2758 3208 4646 5226 2041 3693 14399 21656 29679 30628 ODAGNI 001 001 002 002 NA 001 005 007 009 009 Bilateral ODA 2012 2313 2104 4515 1273 2576 305 5072 11899 12426 Multilateral ODA 745 895 2541 711 769 1118 11349 16584 1778 18202

UN Agencies 966 398 EC 9376 1707

Unspecified 1007 16584 1778 734

Donor Slovak Republic Amount Constant Prices (2006 $ millions) Type of flow Net Disbursements Year 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Type of aid ODA 1445 1172 1648 1192 2084 3227 6032 5511 5546 ODAGNI 004 003 004 002 005 007 012 01 009 Bilateral ODA 805 342 675 664 1177 1229 3301 2475 2265 Multilateral ODA 64 83 973 528 905 1997 273 3036 3281

Appendix 2 Tables 1 ndash 4 Top 3 Recipients of Bilateral ODA Donor Czech Republic Amount Constant Prices (2006) $ million Type of flow ODA net disbursements

Year Country $ million 1998 1 Palestinian-Administered Territory 166

2 Vietnam 070 3 Bosnia-Herzegovina 053 Former Yugoslavia (total) 102

1999 1 Palestinian-Administered Territory 150

2 China 066 3 Bosnia-Herzegovina 055 Former Yugoslavia (total) 139

2000 1 Palestinian-Administered Territory 169 2 Mongolia 094 3 Bosnia-Herzegovina 092 Former Yugoslavia (total) 145

2001 1 Serbia 518 2 Vietnam 177 3 India 197 4 Moldova 171 Former Yugoslavia (total) 829

2002 1 Former Yugoslavia (total) 1100 2 India 221 3 Georgia 153 Former Yugoslavia (total) 1290

2003 1 Iraq 5250 2 Afghanistan 804 3 Serbia amp Montenegro 545 Former Yugoslavia (total) 1440

2004 1 Iraq 1568 2 Serbia amp Montenegro 790 3 Afghanistan 698 Former Yugoslavia (total) 1090

2005 1 Iraq 872 2 Serbia amp Montenegro 689 3 Ukraine 495 Former Yugoslavia (total) 1050

18

18

Donor Czech Republic Amount Constant Prices (2006) $ million Type of flow ODA net disbursements

Year Country $ million 2006 1 Iraq 118

2 Serbia 6 3 Afghanistan 42 Former Yugoslavia (total) 106

Donor Hungary Amount Constant Prices (2006) $ million Type of flow ODA net disbursements

Year Country $ million 2003 1 Serbia 305

2 Vietnam 052 3 Croatia 054 Former Yugoslavia (total) 55

2004 1 Bosnia-Herzegovina 1920 2 Serbia 332 3 Iraq 181 4 Afghanistan 166 Former Yugoslavia (total) 2314

2005 1 Serbia 1012 2 Yemen 986 3 Tanzania 941 Former Yugoslavia (total) 1023

2006 1 Iraq 6715 2 Afghanistan 039 3 Vietnam 031

Former Yugoslavia (total) 059

Donor Poland Amount Constant Prices (2006) $ million Type of flow ODA net disbursements

Year Country $ million 1998 1 Bosnia-Herzegovina 373

2 Vietnam 326 3 Kazakhstan 214 Former Yugoslavia (total) 419

19

19

Donor Poland Amount Constant Prices (2006) $ million Type of flow ODA net disbursements

Year Country $ million 1999 1 Bosnia-Herzegovina 355

2 Macedonia 282 3 Kazakhstan 234 Former Yugoslavia (total) 897

2000 1 Argentina 519 2 Kazakhstan 316 3 Vietnam 164 Former Yugoslavia (total) 174

2001 1 Yemen 347 2 Kazakhstan 256 3 Vietnam 232 Former Yugoslavia (total) 114

2002 1 China 528 2 Kazakhstan 24 3 Vietnam 044 Former Yugoslavia (total) 092

2003 1 Serbia 152 2 Kazakhstan 24 3 China 202 Former Yugoslavia (total) 157

2004 1 Ethiopia 107 2 Serbia 997 3 China 19 4 Kazakhstan 162 Former Yugoslavia (total) 104

2005 1 Serbia 198 2 Ukraine 651 3 Uzbekistan 63 Former Yugoslavia (total) 204

2006 1 Angola 924 2 Ukraine 651 3 Belarus 677 Former Yugoslavia (total) 175

20

20

Donor Slovak Republic Amount Constant Prices (2006) $ million Type of flow ODA net disbursements

Year $ million 2002 1 Former Yugoslavia (total) 083

2 Sudan 018 3 Kenya 016

2003 1 Former Yugoslavia (total) 307 2 Iraq 113 3 Kenya 039

2004 1 Former Yugoslavia (total) 364 2 Hong Kong China 158 3 Georgia 054 4 Afghanistan 043

2005 1 Sudan 1857 2 Afghanistan 474 3 Former Yugoslavia (total) 408

2006 1 Sudan 1498 2 Afghanistan 154 3 Mongolia 064

21

21

Reference Alesina A amp Dollar D (2000) Who Gives Foreign Aid to Whom and Why Journal of

Economic Growth 5 33-63 Bearce D H amp Tirone D C (2007) Foreign Aid Recipient Growth and the Strategic Goals

of Donor Governments manuscript for APSA 2007 Bertheacutelemy J-C amp Tichit A (2004) Bilateral donors aid allocations decisions - a three-

dimensional panel analysis International Review of Economics and Finance Caritas (2006) Vyrocni zprava 2005 Praha Ceska katolicka charita CEC (2006) Communication for the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament

Financing for Development and Aid Effectiveness ndash The challenges of scaling up EU aid 2006 ndash 2008

Granell F (2005) Can the Fifth Enlargement Weaken the EUs Development Cooperation Jean MonnetRobert Schuman Paper Series 5(24 August)

Isenman P (1976) Biases in Aid Allocations Against Poorer and Larger Countries World Development 44 631-641 King M Exnerova V Blazek O Eds (2006) Annual Report 2005 Prague People In Need

Lancaster C (2007) Foreign Aid Chicago and London The University of Chicago Press Maizels A amp Nissanke M K (1984) Motivations for Aid to Developing Countries World

Development 12(9) 870-900 Malkin B amp agencies (2006) Poland to Send More Troops to Afghanistan Guardian

Unlimited September 14 Retrieved 2202008 from wwwguardiancoukafghanistanstory0187212500html

McKinlay R D amp Little R (1977) A Foreign Policy Model of US Bilateral Aid Allocations World Politics 30 58-86

McKinlay R D amp Little R (1978i) The French Aid Relationship A Foreign Policy Model of the Disribution of French Bilateral Aid 1964-1970 Development and Change 9 459-478

McKinlay R D amp Little R (1978ii) A Foreign-Policy Model of the Distribution of British Billateral Aid1960-1970 British Journal of Political Science 8 313-331

McKinlay R D amp Little R (1978iii) The German Aid Relationship A Test of the Recipient Need and the Donor Interest 1960-1970 European Journal of Political Research 6 235-257

McKinlay R D amp Little R (1979) The US Aid Relationship A Test of the Recipient Need and the Donor Interest Model Political Studies 27 236-250

McNamara S (2007) ldquoThe PolishndashAmerican Relationship Deepening and Strengthening the Alliancerdquo Backgrounder 2010 February 27 1-13

Migliorisi S (2003) The Consequences of Enlargement for Development Policy (a report for European Commission)

Moravcsik A amp Vaduchova A M (2003) National Interest State Power and EU Enlargement East European Politics and Societies 17(1) 42-57

Morgenthau H (1962) A Political Theory of Foreign Aid The American Political Science Review 56(2) 301-309

Neumayer E (2003) The Pattern of Aid Giving London and New York Routledge OECD (2008) Glossary of Statistical Terms Retrieved 5282008 from

httpstatsoecdorgglossarydetailaspID=1176 OECD (2008) Development Cooperation Report 2007 (Summary) OECD-DAC (2007) DACs Glossary Retrieved 2202008 from

Schraeder P J Hook S W amp Taylor B (1998) ldquoClarifying the Foreign Aid Puzzle A

httpwwwoecdorgglossary02586en_2649_33721_1965693_1_1_1_100html1965586

22

22

Comparison of American Japanese French and Swedish Aid Flowsrdquo World Politics 50(2) 294-323

Snyder J (2004) One World Rival Theories Foreign Policy (NovDec) 52-62 Theacuterien J-P amp Noeumll A (2000) ldquoPolitical Parties and Foreign Aidrdquo American Political Science

Review 94 (March)(1) 151-162 UNDP (2008) The Human Development Report 20072008 Technical Note UN World Bank (2006) Measuring Progress in Least Developed Countries a statistical profile Waltz K (1979) Theory of International Politics New York Random House

  • R Schuman
    • Vol 5 No 19
    • December 2008
      • Introduction
      • This research aims to contribute to understanding why countries give foreign aid It focuses on the new donors of Central-Eastern Europe (the Czech Republic Hungary Poland and Slovakia) and the Baltic states (Estonia Latvia Lithuania) These cou

3

AID PATTERNS IN CENTRAL EASTERN EUROPElowast

Markeacuteta Vavrečkovaacute

clubs Abstract Central-Eastern European (CEE) and Baltic countries

have undergone significant political and economic transformations since the 1990s One transition that has not yet received sufficient scholarly attention is the shift in regional aid flows Starting in the mid 1990s this trend saw CEE and Baltic countries emerge as donors of foreign aid from a prior condition as net recipients Why have these new democracies strived to make that change to systematically begin to give foreign aid What are the patterns of aid giving that they follow

Evidence suggests that all the donor countries in the CEE and Baltic regions behaved similarly to each other as they institutionalized their own aid flows patterns This research hypothesizes that 1) national governments have determined their overall levels of aid spending in response to pressures and incentives from international organizations 2) political and economic interests play a key role in determining top recipients of bilateral aid Thus donor interest overrides recipient need

Introduction This research aims to contribute to understanding why countries give foreign aid It focuses on the new donors of Central-Eastern Europe (the Czech Republic Hungary Poland and Slovakia) and the Baltic states (Estonia Latvia Lithuania) These countries represent a unique set of donors among the emerging donor community They have all undergone major political and economic changes since the late 1980rsquos They have democratized and they have transformed their economies from centrally planned to market driven 1

This paper seeks to explain the onset of aid giving Why did the countries in the sample start to dole out aid Second I look at the overall levels of Official Development Assistance (ODA) from the CEE and the Baltic and examine the ratio between multilateral and bilateral aid Third I examine bilateral aid flows by looking at the aid recipients I Donor Interest vs Recipient Need

Why countries give aid is a question that has occupied scholars for decades (Alesina Dollar 2000) Most scholars have agreed that governmental decisions about aid disbursements have been shaped by a combination of self-interest and altruistic motivations (Maizels Nissanke 1984 Neumayer 2003 Bertheacutelemy Tichit 2004 Bearce Tirone 2007 etc) International relations theories give support to both sets of motivations While both classical realism and neo-realism

lowast A modified version of this paper was presented at Northeastern Political Science Association conference Boston November 15 2008 This paper is a part of my dissertation project clubs Markeacuteta Vavrečkovaacute is a PhD candidate in the Department of Political Science at Northeastern University in Boston She holds an MA from Charles University Prague and has studied at Universiteacute Luis Pasteur Strasbourg Ms Vavrečkovaacute has taught undergraduate courses in Comparative Politics International Relations and Social Policy at Northeastern University Charles University and at the Global Institute for Leadership and Civic Development in Bloomington Indiana She has also been a researcher at the European Parliament and at the Czech Development Agency

4

center on donor self-interest idealism provides a set of explanations revolving around the needs of recipients

In line with traditional realist thinking Hans Morgenthau suggests that not all interests abroad can be secured by either military or diplomatic means This is when foreign aid comes into play Commercial and security interests can sometimes be better served by providing foreign aid than by using force (Morgenthau 1962 p301) The neorealist perspective further suggests that statesrsquo foreign policy can be analyzed when looking at the international structure This structure works as a constraint on state behavior According to Kenneth Waltz states act in a certain manner because the international system forces them to do so (Waltz 1979) Countries are seeking to build political coalitions in order to insure their security (Snyder 2004) Foreign aid allocations whether symbolic or with a high impact factor on the recipient can have a strengthening effect on coalition cohesion if performed by all members of a coalition Foreign aid allocations can have especially positive effects on the standing of the weaker members in a coalition

According to idealism foreign aid allocations are a response to social and economic needs in less developed countries is Poverty alleviation has become one the most pressing global issues in the 21st

Schraeder

century (Millennium Declaration 2000) International cooperation is on the rise To idealists the realist concept of international relations based on competition ignores such realities ( Hook and Taylor 1998 p298)

This research attempts to determine whether the realistneorealist or idealist thinking prevails in governmental decisions regarding aid allocation from the CEE and Baltic countries It recognizes that governmental decisions are neither purely selfish nor purely altruistic but it seeks to parse out the relative importance of realistneorealist variables and idealist variables II International Environment vs Domestic Arena Much of the literature has been concerned with understanding governmental decision regarding foreign aid flows Yet there is a lack of research regarding the process shaping governmental decisions What domestic and international institutions influence governments when allocating foreign aid resources and more importantly which variables shape the onset of foreign aid

On the international level the influence of international organizations is paramount In particular the UN and the EU have had great influence on CEE and Baltic countries These organizations have in numerous occasions used mechanisms of coercion and stimulation in order to influence policy outcomes in the examined emerging donor countries (Moravcsik Vaduchova 2003)

In addition to formal international organizations being a part of an alliance could have influenced new democracies in their decision to become donors The relatively small size of the CEE and Baltic countries their geographical position in the center of Europe and their recent experience with oppressive foreign powers make security concerns in these countries highly topical Once part of the Soviet Block CEE and Baltic countries realigned their security alliance with Western democratic powers However loyalty to the new allies goes beyond formal institutional structures such as NATO Countries usually coordinate their foreign policy positions regarding important international issues in accordance with the Western alliance Foreign aid disbursements consistent with the interests of the new coalition can be an expression of support for the coalitionrsquos efforts and simultaneously a symbolic safeguard for ensuring a donorrsquos own security

Thirdly individual countries could pressure for the establishment of aid flows Particularly the CEE and Baltic countries have been a focus of US foreign policy because of their strategic position between the advanced democracies and Russia For example as part of its missile defense shield design the US has declared its intention to plant a dozen anti-missile warheads in Poland and to place an anti-ballistic radar in the Czech Republic (Gordon 2006) It is

5

reasonable to expect that the US could also pressure CEE and Baltic governments in order to obtain specific aid flow configurations more in tune with its strategic preferences

Lancaster claims that at the beginning the 21st

Lancaster claims that international organizations increasingly promote the solidarity of advanced countries with the less developed world and that such organizations are persistent their

century aid has increasingly become a norm supported by domestic governments and a substantial part of their constituencies in advanced democracies Western donors no longer question whether they should give aid or not (Lancaster 2006) Emerging donors in the sample have undergone a successful transition from authoritarianism to democracy Onset of aid giving can mean that the new democracies have adopted the values of international solidarity together with democratic standards Recognition that aid giving is a standard adopted by advanced countries can also have a distinct effect on the new democracies These countries are aiming to ldquocatch-uprdquo with their Western counterparts For example typical benchmarks for assessing progress in the two examined regions are economic performance levels of social spending and standards of living in the old EU member states From this catching up perspective national governments can decide to mimic the activities of the ldquorich country clubrdquo such as aid giving so that they give the impression of being already ldquoinrdquo In this case aid giving would not be a reflection of a change in domestic norms and values but it would rather be an example of symbolic activity performed in order to gain status and international recognition

On the domestic level several actors might have contributed to the onset of aid giving First the newly established non-governmental sector started to play a role in the CEE and Baltic countries after the collapse of communism A multitude of philanthropic organizations has emerged in the 1990s and they have attempted to lobby their governments to promote their priorities For example NGOs involved in humanitarian and developmental activities in the CEE and Baltic countries have united in national umbrella associations in order to facilitate policy dialogue with governments (Migliorisi 2003 p31) This suggests a substantial commitment to influence policy making

The collapse of the Soviet Block created a potential for establishing commercial relations virtually anywhere in the world Governments around the world mostly support their private businesses in establishing commercial ties Foreign aid is sometimes used as a tool for facilitating these commercial interests For instance governments can give out aid so the recipient country is more willing to accept donor exports Pressures from private companies could be an important factor contributing to the onset of aid

A development agenda is being adopted and pursued by political parties in Western democracies For example Theacuterien and Noeumll argue that within the OECD countries social-democratic parties have an effect on a countryrsquos level of development assistance (Theacuterien Noeumll 2000) Similarly a foreign aid agenda could be incorporated into political programs of political parties in the emerging donor countries and could have influenced governmental decisions

Finally values held by domestic populations can also influence aid giving Democratic transition has had an impact on the preferences and norms held by individuals in the emerging donor countries Widespread free mass media reach new economic ties and extended possibilities to travel abroad have shaped the perceptions of ordinary citizens toward their countriesrsquo role in the globalized world Being exposed to international affairs also allowed citizens to fully develop their opinions on the role of their countries vis-agrave-vis less developed countries All these new phenomena could have materialized into a support for aid giving

Understanding the onset stage is especially important today when total aid flows have been globally on the rise since 2003 (OECD 2008) and the community of donor countries is growing In the mid-1990rsquos when CEE and Baltic countries started to allocate foreign aid Korea Thailand and Turkey began their transformation into donors of foreign aid as well Later Arab countries like Kuwait Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates joined the donor club Currently China and Russia are also establishing themselves as donors

6

efforts to push more national governments to provide more aid In this environment aid giving has become an international standard for governments in rich countries (Lancaster 2006 p 5) This hypothesis presents a dynamic deserving rigorous testing in the case of emerging donors as well given that most of these countries have undergone economic growth in the recent years This project is an attempt to test the hypothesis particularly in the Central European region III Official Development Assistance (ODA) Foreign aid refers to transfers among governments and between governments and international organizations It can be in the form of cash (grants or concessional loans) in kind (eg food aid) or in the form of debt relief The Development Assistance Committee (DAC) of the OECD uses the official development assistance (ODA) indicator to measure foreign aid flows (OECD 2008) ODA flows are divided into two basic categories multilateral aid (transfers from governments to international organizations) and bilateral aid (transfers from governments to governments)

The aim of ODA transfers is to contribute to economic development and welfare ODA does not include military expenditures subsidies to promote private investment funding for anti-terrorism or other law-enforcement programs bribes costs of representation or private charitable giving (OECD 2007) It is important to keep in mind that foreign aid differs from humanitarian aid which is typically provided in response to humanitarian crises The primary objective of humanitarian aid is to save lives whereas development aid focuses on improving socio-economic conditions ODA is typically measured in US dollars ($) or as a percentage of gross national income (GNI)2

2 The OECD defines GNI as GDP less primary incomes payable to non- resident units plus primary incomes receivable from non-resident units (OECD Glossary of Statistical Terms 2008)

The DAC collects data from OECD members and affiliates regarding ODA flows

Although CEE and Baltic countries are not yet DAC members they have adjusted their national statistics according to DAC methodology and they submit annual reports to the organization Comparable data for the Czech Republic Hungary Poland and the Slovak Republic is available starting in the mid-1990s through the OECD database

This paper aims to reveal trends in overall aid giving among emerging CEE and Baltic donors Absolute ODA and allocations relative to GNI are presented Further I focus on ratios between bilateral and multilateral aid in the case of the Czech Republic Hungary Poland and the Slovak Republic Top bilateral aid recipients for each of these donor countries will be identified Eventually I examine the onset stage in the case of the Czech Republic IV Findings IV1 Total Foreign Aid In all seven examined countries ODAGNI ratios have grown between the years 2001 ndash 2006 The most radical growth can be seen in the case of Hungary and Poland where the ODAGNI ratio grew five times during the course of five years

7

Table 1 ODAGNI ODAGNI ratio (in ) 2001 2006 Poland 002 01 Czech Republic 005 011 Slovak Republic 006 0085 Hungary 002 01 Lithuania 002 0064 Latvia 002 006 Estonia 001 006 Migliorisi Stephano (2003) The Consequences of Enlargement for Development Policy CEC (2006) Communication for the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament ldquoFinancing for Development and Aid Effectiveness ndash The challenges of scaling up EU aid 2006 ndash 2008rdquo

The DAC offers detailed ODA statistics for the Czech Republic Hungary Poland and

the Slovak Republic (Grafs 1-4 source data Appendix 1) The data reveal that total ODA spending grew only incrementally between the years 1998-2002 Substantial growth is traceable since 2003 I attribute this pattern to the process of enlargement in the European Union (EU)

The Czech Republic Hungary Poland and the Slovak Republic together with the three Baltic countries and Cyprus Malta and Slovenia joined the European Union in May of 2004 Prior to accession these countries had to harmonize their national laws and practices according to the European legislature Foreign aid was one of the numerous areas subject to negotiation between the acceding states and the European Commission The applicants agreed to join the EUrsquos development and humanitarian aid framework on the date of their accession EU membership gave the new members the possibility to take part in decision-making on the European level 3

Data indicate that ODAGNI continued to grow in the following years approaching the commitment levels made to the EU Increase in ODA disbursements under EU pressure was

However it has also brought new commitments The countries were asked to restructure their national foreign aid framework to increase development spending and to start paying contributions to the EUrsquos foreign aid budget (European Development Fund)

When examining ODAGNI levels the EU influence is evident In 2003 a year prior the EU accession ODA disbursements double in case of Slovakia and almost doubled in the case of the Czech Republic and Hungary Poland witnessed steep growth of the ODAGNI ratio in the following year

As a new EU member the Czech Republic Hungary Poland and Slovakia took part in the European Council negotiations of 2005 Together with other 20 EU members the countries made a commitment to strive for a goal of 056 of ODAGNI per year However more specific and realistic commitments based on economic potential were negotiated on a country grouping basis Old members committed themselves to 05 of ODAGNI per year The ten new members set a goal of annual 017 of ODAGNI

3 Detailed discussion of the harmonization process and its possible implications for the EU can be found in Granell F (2005)

8

Graphs 1- 4 Bilateral vs Multilateral ODA

Czech Republic Bilateral vs Multilateral ODA

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Year

Multilateral ODA

Bilateral ODA

Slovak Republic Bilateral vs Multilateral ODA

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Year

Multilateral ODABilateral ODA

Poland Bilateral vs Multilateral ODA

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Year

Multilateral ODABilateral ODA

Hungary Bilateral vs Multilateral ODA

0

2040

60

80

100120

140

160

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Year

Multilateral ODA

Bilateral ODA

9

probably opposed by some segments within the new membersrsquo governments Nevertheless membership in the EU was a long-term economic and geopolitical interest of the Thus sacrificing a small fraction of their GNI as foreign aid was a minor cost compared to the benefits of EU membership

However experience from previous waves of enlargement shows that the logic of long-term benefits is oftentimes forgotten once applicants are in the Union 4

Another noticeable trend is that Iraq and Afghanistan have become major recipients of Czech foreign aid since in 2003 The two countries received almost 50 of total Czech bilateral aid in 2003 The flows have decreased since then but Iraq still obtains the most aid of all bilateral recipients Diplomatic purposes behind these disbursements are clear The Czech Republic entered into an alliance with the US and Western European powers after the end of the Cold War

Thus it is likely to expect that after accession new members would relax their commitment to EU membership pre-conditions This trend can be perhaps already witnessed in the case of the Czech Republic Hungary and Slovakia where ODAGNI ratio has decreased slightly in 2007 IV2 Bilateral Aid Are the bilateral allocations of the new donors driven by their interests or the recipients needs McKinlay and Little used these two independent variables to explain aid allocation for the first time in the 1970s (McKinlay Little 1977 1978iiiiii 1979) and they continue to be the most standardized variables today (eg Bearce Tirone 2007) Numerous studies have operationalized the variables in different ways Nevertheless most scholars have included political economic and cultural aspects within the donor interest variable (Neumayer 2003 p 19) I do the same in this research Further I operationalize recipient need based on identification with the group of Least Developed Countries This classification takes into account per capita income and combines it with quality of life indicators (UN World Bank 2006)

In the following section I discuss bilateral flows allocated by the Czech Hungarian Polish and Slovak governments OECD database does not include any data for disbursements from Estonia Latvia and Lithuania Czech Republic receives most attention in this section due to the availability of most detailed data and my most immediate experience with aid management in the country

In the Czech Republic bilateral aid was traditionally dispersed among many recipients in the period of 1998-2000 This dispersion happened mainly because ten ministries used to be responsible for project implementation (Migliorisi 2003) There were attempts to streamline the number of countries receiving aid by identifying eight long-term priority and two mid-term priority countries Yet the effort was not concentrated enough until the late-2000s For example the country carried out over 100 projects in about 35 countries in 2005

Starting in 2001 states of the former Yugoslavia have received more intensive attention According to the amount of total aid received Bosnia-Herzegovina Serbia and Moldova ranked among the top recipients (Appendix 2 Table 1) None of these countries belongs to the group of least developed countries thus the hypothesis of prioritizing based on recipient need can be rejected There are two possible alternative explanations for this choice of recipients First the former Yugoslavia is a region in Southern Europe thus geographical proximity is clearly an advantage when implementing the project Further Slavic populations prevail in all post-Yugoslavian countries The linguistic familiarity can additionally facilitate project management and effectiveness A second alternative explanation suggests that the Czech Republic started to be deeply engaged in former Yugoslavian countries because of the pressure of Czech NGOs Section IV3 will further discuss these hypotheses

4 Expansion of this idea can be found for example in Moravcsik A amp Vaduchova A M (2003) ldquoNational Interest State Power and EU Enlargementrdquo East European Politics and Societies 17(1) 42-57

10

Providing resources for operations conducted by its allies is a most efficient symbol of political support However in the case of Afghanistan altruistic motivations are also present since the country belongs to the group of least developed countries (UN World Bank 2006)

Hungary displays similar yet less distinct patterns than the Czech Republic (Appendix 2 Table 2) Former Yugoslavian countries remain the primary recipients of Hungarian bilateral ODA However Hungary provided a large proportion of its foreign aid to in 2004 and 2006 This timing parallels the military operations of Hungaryrsquos allies in these two countries In 2005 allocations to both Afghanistan and Iraq were only marginal ($ 007 and $ 038 million respectively) and this represents a deviation deserving further qualitative exploration The Polish case displays similar patterns in some regards yet it substantially differs in others The former Yugoslavia has been the highest recipient of Polish between the years 1998 ndash 2006 Nevertheless Polandrsquos disbursements to Iraq and Afghanistan have been rather negligible (Appendix 2 Table 3) This is a rather surprising trend Out of the seven examined countries Poland has traditionally been the closest ally to the US In 2005 President George W Bush asserted that Poland has been a fantastic ally (White House in McNamara 2007 p1) Poland is one of the four leading countries in the coalition for the War on Terror alongside Australia Britain and the US The Polish government initially sent 900 troops to Iraq In 2006 it committed an additional 900 troops to fight the insurgency in Afghanistan (Malkin and agencies 2006) Thus it would be reasonable to expect that US ndash Polish alliance would be reflected in the Polish preferences for top aid recipients However the evidence shows the opposite Iraq and Afghanistan received in 2006 only $047 million and $055 million respectively which refutes the hypothesis of political alliance between the US and Poland influencing aid disbursements Furthermore Poland shows a consistent commitment to Kazakhstan a former Soviet Republic With an annual PPP GDP of $ 10400 and 73 growth rate (CIA Fact sheet) Kazakhstan does not belong to the group of least developed countries Thus I refute altruistic explanation for this commitment On the contrary I hypothesize that this commitment is related to the fact that Kazakhstan possesses enormous fossil fuel reserves and plentiful supplies of other minerals and metals which could be potentially beneficial to the Polish economy In 2005 and 2006 Poland allocated relatively substantial sums to Belarus Ukraine and Uzbekistan three other post-Soviet countries It is too early to state whether these allocations represent a major trend However a potential explanation for these allocations could be a mix of economic considerations (especially in the case of Uzbekistan) connected with geographical proximity and cultural similarity For Slovakia as is the case with the other three new donors the primary focus has been the former Yugoslavia Afghanistan established itself as one of the major recipients of Slovak aid between 2004 and 2006 A combination of donor political interests and recipient need is probably reflected in this trend Afghanistan has been a major target for Western intervention and at the same time it belongs to the group of least developed countries Sudan has been a recipient of Slovak aid between the years of 2002 and 2006 which comprises the entire period of recorded Slovak bilateral disbursements In 2005 and 2006 Sudan became the biggest recipient of Slovak aid substantially ahead of other recipients Slovakia does not have any political nor economic interests in Sudan Sudan is a longstanding member of the least developed countries group thus it is of great need of foreign assistance Slovaks allocations seem to be responding to this need

In conclusion all four examined countries display a clear common pattern in their focus on the states from the former Yugoslavia which is probably motivated by geographical and cultural proximity While the Czech Republic Hungary and Slovakia strengthen their political alliance with Western powers thorough generous allocations to Afghanistan and Iraq Poland focuses on Kazakhstan a resourceful country once a part of the Soviet block Slovak allocations to Sudan seem to indicate altruistic motivations

11

IV3 Czech Republic Case Study Capacity Building What were the forces that shaped the onset stage of aid giving Has the institutional framework of the new economic policy towards developing countries developed as a result of domestic or international incentives

In 1995 the Czech Republic became a member of the OECD which fosters cooperation among developed democracies Within the organization the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) aims at improving governmental policies towards developing countries The Czech Republic obtained the status of an observer in 1996 which allowed it to participate in DAC activities without partaking in any negotiations

The DAC introduced Czech public sector administrators to its methods of collecting information on foreign aid flows in the second part of the 1990s Since then the country has adopted the concept of official development assistance as the principal unit for measuring its foreign aid disbursements Data based on the OECD methodology are available for the first time for the year 1999 Czech ODA in this year was $ 2642 million or 0027 of the GNI

In 1999 the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) launched a series of projects which aimed to create national capacities for international development cooperation Several administrators were trained in order to understand foreign aid concepts and managerial tools Further Czech administrators were able to visit developing countries and learn about the needs of potential aid recipients The UNDP financed the founding of the Development Center The Center was created outside of governmental structures at a research institute for international relations The main objective of the Center has been to carry out consultative services to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs which forms governmental strategies for foreign aid In doing so the Center has helped with the design of national policy for cooperation with developing countries The UNDP ceased capacity-building activities in 2004 just as the Czech government was about to enter the European Union The total of contributions from the UNDP towards Czech capacity-building has reached over USD 1 million over the course of five years The Czech government complemented the UNDP budget with an additional USD 012 million

In 2002 the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) which has a strong international reputation as a foreign aid agency launched a program for strengthening ODA delivery agencies in the Czech Republic Hungary Poland and Slovakia This five-year long project aimed to spend USD 15 million in order to increase the amount and quality of assistance given by new donors to developing countries The project has been divided into two phases The focus in the first phase was institutional support and capacity building The second phase was centered on trilateral cooperation when the CIDA and a new donor conduct projects in developing countries together The first phase in which the Czech Republic received training and technical assistance finished in 2004 when the CIDA declared the Czech institutional capacities as sufficient The second phase of trilateral cooperation finished in 2007 In 2008 the Development Center became a Development Agency fully comparable to those of OECDDAC members

The impact of CIDArsquos assistance on capacity building has been smaller than the UNDPrsquos impact Most of the resources allocated for the Czech Republic were further used for projects in developing countries However the collaboration of Czech administrators with their Canadian counterparts in project management led to significant know-how transfers for the Czech specialists

The aforementioned evidence shows that the initial setup for foreign aid management in the Czech Republic was heavily shaped by international institutions The OECD through the DAC provided expertise in policy design and introduced basic concepts used for aid processing The UNDP and CIDA financed national capacity building These organizations trained Czech

12

administrators to become experts in foreign aid and also were the force behind the origin of new institutional capacities which are now concentrated in the Czech Development Agency and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Bilateral Aid I have identified the states from the former Yugoslavia as the biggest recipients of Czech ODA In this section I claim that the Czech government has consistently been engaged in these countries because of pressure from domestic NGOrsquos

People in Need (PIN) is by far the largest non-governmental organization providing relief aid and development assistance in the Czech Republic It is one of the largest organizations of its kind in post-communist Europe and has administered projects in thirty-seven countries over the past fourteen years The annual budget of PIN in 2005 was 109 million EURO ($ 137 million) (King Exnerova Blazek eds 2006)

PIN began in 1992 when dissidents and leaders of the Czechoslovak Velvet Revolution teamed with conflict journalists working for the Czech Public Service Television They aimed to provide humanitarian aid to the civil war torn region of Nagorno-Karabakh (former USSR) Since then the activities of the organization have proliferated Although the organization works in fourteen countries in Asia Europe and Africa the main focus of its work has remained in the countries of the former Soviet Union or the former Soviet bloc The organization has been primarily involved in Ukraine Moldova and Tajikistan Throughout the nineties it provided robust assistance during the humanitarian interventions in the war-torn countries of the former Yugoslavia and later during the reconstruction of these areas According to PINrsquos long-term plan the organization would like to further contribute to the reconstruction of the countries of the former Yugoslavia The cultural similarities between the Czech Republic and the region of the Balkan should facilitate such assistance

Caritas is another organization working in the field of foreign humanitarian and development assistance Because the main objective of the organization is provision of social services in the Czech Republic the magnitude of its foreign projects is limited In 2005 the resources allocated to the activities abroad reached $ 16 million which was approximately one tenth of PINrsquos budget (Caritas 2006) Throughout the nineties the organization worked in Chechnya Georgia Ukraine Moldova and the countries of the Balkan which have received priority throughout the 1990s and in the beginning of the 21st century

Both organizations started their activities in former USSR countries and in the Balkan prior to the intensification of governmental flows into these countries The projects were primarily funded by donations or through multilateral agencies Later on governmental funding played a substantial role It is reasonable to expect that this change has occurred due to pressure from these organizations The government might have been easily willing to accommodate the NGOs as their experience in the regions ensured the quality and sustainability of projects Multilateral Aid Czech multilateral ODA disbursements (Graph 5) have followed a similar pattern as total ODA (Graph 1 p10) Multilateral ODA remained rather constant between the years 2000 ndash 2003 Starting in 2004 a dramatic increase occurred I have attributed this growth to entry into the EU in section IV1 This explanation is further reinforced when looking at the specific recipients of multilateral aid The European Union is by far the largest recipient following the year of the countryrsquos accession into the Union The importance of other recipients is decreasing or remains constant as in the case of the UN

13

Graph 5 Czech Republic Multilateral ODA Disbursements

Czech Republic Multilateral ODA Disbursements

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Year

UnspecifiedEC

UN

V Preliminary Conclusion When relating the findings to the theoretical framework outlined in the introductory sections the following conclusions can be made First the case of the Czech Republic suggests that the onset of aid giving has primarily been driven by the international arena Intergovernmental and overseas governmental organizations provided the financial support necessary for capacity building They have also offered substantial transfer of foreign aid know-how Domestic actors such as political parties or non- governmental sector have not played a major role at this stage

Second evidence for the Czech Republic Hungary Poland and Slovakia reveals that the EU an international actor has played a major role in determining current ODA levels Significant growth of total ODA is evident only after the EU mandated and presented it as one of many conditions for EU accession The underlying influence of the EU also manifests itself in the multilateral aid disbursements of the Czech Republic where the vast majority of the funds go to the European Union budget

Third several trends show up when analyzing bilateral allocations For the Czech Republic Hungary Poland and Slovakia post-Yugoslavian nations have been primary recipients of foreign aid Pragmatism rather than altruism derived from recipient need is probably behind this pattern Geographical proximity cultural similarity and a shared experience of a communist past are factors potentially leading to effectiveness in aid allocations The case of the Czech Republic suggests that the non-governmental sector played a constitutive role in prioritizing former Yugoslavian countries

Starting mid-2000s the prioritizing of Afghanistan and Iraq in the Czech Hungarian and Slovak aid disbursements implies that the donors seek to strengthen their political coalition with Western powers Yet donor interest is combined with recipient need in the case of Afghanistan since the country is included on the list of least developed countries

Polish bilateral aid has also been strongly shaped by donor interest but one of a different nature As the country focuses on Kazakhstan natural resources endowed country with rapidly growing GNI economic interest is paramount

Lastly Slovak focus on Sudan in the last couple of years could represent a genuine altruistic response to recipient needs as Sudan belongs to the group of least developed countries (UN World Bank 2006) However it is too soon to conclude if allocations to Sudan form a long-term pattern or is they are merely isolated events without a solid institutional anchor

14

Overall donorsrsquo interest prevails over recipient need when analyzing bilateral allocations Yet different interests motivate the direction of bilateral disbursements Evidence suggests that political and economic motivations are the most frequent ones Recipient need is being reflected primarily when combined with donor interest Isolated instances of altruism occur sporadically

15

Appendix 1 Tables 1 ndash 4 Total Bilateral and Multilateral ODA

Donor Czech Republic Amount Constant Prices (2006 $ millions) Type of flow Net Disbursements Year 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Type of aid ODA 2769 2642 3173 4881 7004 11896 12419 14492 16086 15504 ODAGNI 003 003 003 005 007 011 011 011 012 011 Bilateral ODA 1006 1185 1249 2753 4832 10558 7288 6906 777 7377 Multilateral ODA 1763 1457 1924 2128 2173 1339 5131 7587 8316 8127

UN Agencies 1034 698 634 477 524 57 EC 3854 6619 6874 7167

Unspecified 1924 2128 1139 641 643 491 918 39

Donor Hungary Amount Constant Prices (2006 $ millions) Type of flow Net Disbursements Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Type of aid ODA 2501 716 9866 14949 7487 ODAGNI 003 007 011 014 007 Bilateral ODA 1637 3623 3889 8434 2813 Multilateral ODA 866 3536 5978 6515 4674

16

Donor Poland Amount Constant Prices (2006 $ millions) Type of flow Net Disbursements Year 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Type of aid ODA 2758 3208 4646 5226 2041 3693 14399 21656 29679 30628 ODAGNI 001 001 002 002 NA 001 005 007 009 009 Bilateral ODA 2012 2313 2104 4515 1273 2576 305 5072 11899 12426 Multilateral ODA 745 895 2541 711 769 1118 11349 16584 1778 18202

UN Agencies 966 398 EC 9376 1707

Unspecified 1007 16584 1778 734

Donor Slovak Republic Amount Constant Prices (2006 $ millions) Type of flow Net Disbursements Year 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Type of aid ODA 1445 1172 1648 1192 2084 3227 6032 5511 5546 ODAGNI 004 003 004 002 005 007 012 01 009 Bilateral ODA 805 342 675 664 1177 1229 3301 2475 2265 Multilateral ODA 64 83 973 528 905 1997 273 3036 3281

Appendix 2 Tables 1 ndash 4 Top 3 Recipients of Bilateral ODA Donor Czech Republic Amount Constant Prices (2006) $ million Type of flow ODA net disbursements

Year Country $ million 1998 1 Palestinian-Administered Territory 166

2 Vietnam 070 3 Bosnia-Herzegovina 053 Former Yugoslavia (total) 102

1999 1 Palestinian-Administered Territory 150

2 China 066 3 Bosnia-Herzegovina 055 Former Yugoslavia (total) 139

2000 1 Palestinian-Administered Territory 169 2 Mongolia 094 3 Bosnia-Herzegovina 092 Former Yugoslavia (total) 145

2001 1 Serbia 518 2 Vietnam 177 3 India 197 4 Moldova 171 Former Yugoslavia (total) 829

2002 1 Former Yugoslavia (total) 1100 2 India 221 3 Georgia 153 Former Yugoslavia (total) 1290

2003 1 Iraq 5250 2 Afghanistan 804 3 Serbia amp Montenegro 545 Former Yugoslavia (total) 1440

2004 1 Iraq 1568 2 Serbia amp Montenegro 790 3 Afghanistan 698 Former Yugoslavia (total) 1090

2005 1 Iraq 872 2 Serbia amp Montenegro 689 3 Ukraine 495 Former Yugoslavia (total) 1050

18

18

Donor Czech Republic Amount Constant Prices (2006) $ million Type of flow ODA net disbursements

Year Country $ million 2006 1 Iraq 118

2 Serbia 6 3 Afghanistan 42 Former Yugoslavia (total) 106

Donor Hungary Amount Constant Prices (2006) $ million Type of flow ODA net disbursements

Year Country $ million 2003 1 Serbia 305

2 Vietnam 052 3 Croatia 054 Former Yugoslavia (total) 55

2004 1 Bosnia-Herzegovina 1920 2 Serbia 332 3 Iraq 181 4 Afghanistan 166 Former Yugoslavia (total) 2314

2005 1 Serbia 1012 2 Yemen 986 3 Tanzania 941 Former Yugoslavia (total) 1023

2006 1 Iraq 6715 2 Afghanistan 039 3 Vietnam 031

Former Yugoslavia (total) 059

Donor Poland Amount Constant Prices (2006) $ million Type of flow ODA net disbursements

Year Country $ million 1998 1 Bosnia-Herzegovina 373

2 Vietnam 326 3 Kazakhstan 214 Former Yugoslavia (total) 419

19

19

Donor Poland Amount Constant Prices (2006) $ million Type of flow ODA net disbursements

Year Country $ million 1999 1 Bosnia-Herzegovina 355

2 Macedonia 282 3 Kazakhstan 234 Former Yugoslavia (total) 897

2000 1 Argentina 519 2 Kazakhstan 316 3 Vietnam 164 Former Yugoslavia (total) 174

2001 1 Yemen 347 2 Kazakhstan 256 3 Vietnam 232 Former Yugoslavia (total) 114

2002 1 China 528 2 Kazakhstan 24 3 Vietnam 044 Former Yugoslavia (total) 092

2003 1 Serbia 152 2 Kazakhstan 24 3 China 202 Former Yugoslavia (total) 157

2004 1 Ethiopia 107 2 Serbia 997 3 China 19 4 Kazakhstan 162 Former Yugoslavia (total) 104

2005 1 Serbia 198 2 Ukraine 651 3 Uzbekistan 63 Former Yugoslavia (total) 204

2006 1 Angola 924 2 Ukraine 651 3 Belarus 677 Former Yugoslavia (total) 175

20

20

Donor Slovak Republic Amount Constant Prices (2006) $ million Type of flow ODA net disbursements

Year $ million 2002 1 Former Yugoslavia (total) 083

2 Sudan 018 3 Kenya 016

2003 1 Former Yugoslavia (total) 307 2 Iraq 113 3 Kenya 039

2004 1 Former Yugoslavia (total) 364 2 Hong Kong China 158 3 Georgia 054 4 Afghanistan 043

2005 1 Sudan 1857 2 Afghanistan 474 3 Former Yugoslavia (total) 408

2006 1 Sudan 1498 2 Afghanistan 154 3 Mongolia 064

21

21

Reference Alesina A amp Dollar D (2000) Who Gives Foreign Aid to Whom and Why Journal of

Economic Growth 5 33-63 Bearce D H amp Tirone D C (2007) Foreign Aid Recipient Growth and the Strategic Goals

of Donor Governments manuscript for APSA 2007 Bertheacutelemy J-C amp Tichit A (2004) Bilateral donors aid allocations decisions - a three-

dimensional panel analysis International Review of Economics and Finance Caritas (2006) Vyrocni zprava 2005 Praha Ceska katolicka charita CEC (2006) Communication for the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament

Financing for Development and Aid Effectiveness ndash The challenges of scaling up EU aid 2006 ndash 2008

Granell F (2005) Can the Fifth Enlargement Weaken the EUs Development Cooperation Jean MonnetRobert Schuman Paper Series 5(24 August)

Isenman P (1976) Biases in Aid Allocations Against Poorer and Larger Countries World Development 44 631-641 King M Exnerova V Blazek O Eds (2006) Annual Report 2005 Prague People In Need

Lancaster C (2007) Foreign Aid Chicago and London The University of Chicago Press Maizels A amp Nissanke M K (1984) Motivations for Aid to Developing Countries World

Development 12(9) 870-900 Malkin B amp agencies (2006) Poland to Send More Troops to Afghanistan Guardian

Unlimited September 14 Retrieved 2202008 from wwwguardiancoukafghanistanstory0187212500html

McKinlay R D amp Little R (1977) A Foreign Policy Model of US Bilateral Aid Allocations World Politics 30 58-86

McKinlay R D amp Little R (1978i) The French Aid Relationship A Foreign Policy Model of the Disribution of French Bilateral Aid 1964-1970 Development and Change 9 459-478

McKinlay R D amp Little R (1978ii) A Foreign-Policy Model of the Distribution of British Billateral Aid1960-1970 British Journal of Political Science 8 313-331

McKinlay R D amp Little R (1978iii) The German Aid Relationship A Test of the Recipient Need and the Donor Interest 1960-1970 European Journal of Political Research 6 235-257

McKinlay R D amp Little R (1979) The US Aid Relationship A Test of the Recipient Need and the Donor Interest Model Political Studies 27 236-250

McNamara S (2007) ldquoThe PolishndashAmerican Relationship Deepening and Strengthening the Alliancerdquo Backgrounder 2010 February 27 1-13

Migliorisi S (2003) The Consequences of Enlargement for Development Policy (a report for European Commission)

Moravcsik A amp Vaduchova A M (2003) National Interest State Power and EU Enlargement East European Politics and Societies 17(1) 42-57

Morgenthau H (1962) A Political Theory of Foreign Aid The American Political Science Review 56(2) 301-309

Neumayer E (2003) The Pattern of Aid Giving London and New York Routledge OECD (2008) Glossary of Statistical Terms Retrieved 5282008 from

httpstatsoecdorgglossarydetailaspID=1176 OECD (2008) Development Cooperation Report 2007 (Summary) OECD-DAC (2007) DACs Glossary Retrieved 2202008 from

Schraeder P J Hook S W amp Taylor B (1998) ldquoClarifying the Foreign Aid Puzzle A

httpwwwoecdorgglossary02586en_2649_33721_1965693_1_1_1_100html1965586

22

22

Comparison of American Japanese French and Swedish Aid Flowsrdquo World Politics 50(2) 294-323

Snyder J (2004) One World Rival Theories Foreign Policy (NovDec) 52-62 Theacuterien J-P amp Noeumll A (2000) ldquoPolitical Parties and Foreign Aidrdquo American Political Science

Review 94 (March)(1) 151-162 UNDP (2008) The Human Development Report 20072008 Technical Note UN World Bank (2006) Measuring Progress in Least Developed Countries a statistical profile Waltz K (1979) Theory of International Politics New York Random House

  • R Schuman
    • Vol 5 No 19
    • December 2008
      • Introduction
      • This research aims to contribute to understanding why countries give foreign aid It focuses on the new donors of Central-Eastern Europe (the Czech Republic Hungary Poland and Slovakia) and the Baltic states (Estonia Latvia Lithuania) These cou

4

center on donor self-interest idealism provides a set of explanations revolving around the needs of recipients

In line with traditional realist thinking Hans Morgenthau suggests that not all interests abroad can be secured by either military or diplomatic means This is when foreign aid comes into play Commercial and security interests can sometimes be better served by providing foreign aid than by using force (Morgenthau 1962 p301) The neorealist perspective further suggests that statesrsquo foreign policy can be analyzed when looking at the international structure This structure works as a constraint on state behavior According to Kenneth Waltz states act in a certain manner because the international system forces them to do so (Waltz 1979) Countries are seeking to build political coalitions in order to insure their security (Snyder 2004) Foreign aid allocations whether symbolic or with a high impact factor on the recipient can have a strengthening effect on coalition cohesion if performed by all members of a coalition Foreign aid allocations can have especially positive effects on the standing of the weaker members in a coalition

According to idealism foreign aid allocations are a response to social and economic needs in less developed countries is Poverty alleviation has become one the most pressing global issues in the 21st

Schraeder

century (Millennium Declaration 2000) International cooperation is on the rise To idealists the realist concept of international relations based on competition ignores such realities ( Hook and Taylor 1998 p298)

This research attempts to determine whether the realistneorealist or idealist thinking prevails in governmental decisions regarding aid allocation from the CEE and Baltic countries It recognizes that governmental decisions are neither purely selfish nor purely altruistic but it seeks to parse out the relative importance of realistneorealist variables and idealist variables II International Environment vs Domestic Arena Much of the literature has been concerned with understanding governmental decision regarding foreign aid flows Yet there is a lack of research regarding the process shaping governmental decisions What domestic and international institutions influence governments when allocating foreign aid resources and more importantly which variables shape the onset of foreign aid

On the international level the influence of international organizations is paramount In particular the UN and the EU have had great influence on CEE and Baltic countries These organizations have in numerous occasions used mechanisms of coercion and stimulation in order to influence policy outcomes in the examined emerging donor countries (Moravcsik Vaduchova 2003)

In addition to formal international organizations being a part of an alliance could have influenced new democracies in their decision to become donors The relatively small size of the CEE and Baltic countries their geographical position in the center of Europe and their recent experience with oppressive foreign powers make security concerns in these countries highly topical Once part of the Soviet Block CEE and Baltic countries realigned their security alliance with Western democratic powers However loyalty to the new allies goes beyond formal institutional structures such as NATO Countries usually coordinate their foreign policy positions regarding important international issues in accordance with the Western alliance Foreign aid disbursements consistent with the interests of the new coalition can be an expression of support for the coalitionrsquos efforts and simultaneously a symbolic safeguard for ensuring a donorrsquos own security

Thirdly individual countries could pressure for the establishment of aid flows Particularly the CEE and Baltic countries have been a focus of US foreign policy because of their strategic position between the advanced democracies and Russia For example as part of its missile defense shield design the US has declared its intention to plant a dozen anti-missile warheads in Poland and to place an anti-ballistic radar in the Czech Republic (Gordon 2006) It is

5

reasonable to expect that the US could also pressure CEE and Baltic governments in order to obtain specific aid flow configurations more in tune with its strategic preferences

Lancaster claims that at the beginning the 21st

Lancaster claims that international organizations increasingly promote the solidarity of advanced countries with the less developed world and that such organizations are persistent their

century aid has increasingly become a norm supported by domestic governments and a substantial part of their constituencies in advanced democracies Western donors no longer question whether they should give aid or not (Lancaster 2006) Emerging donors in the sample have undergone a successful transition from authoritarianism to democracy Onset of aid giving can mean that the new democracies have adopted the values of international solidarity together with democratic standards Recognition that aid giving is a standard adopted by advanced countries can also have a distinct effect on the new democracies These countries are aiming to ldquocatch-uprdquo with their Western counterparts For example typical benchmarks for assessing progress in the two examined regions are economic performance levels of social spending and standards of living in the old EU member states From this catching up perspective national governments can decide to mimic the activities of the ldquorich country clubrdquo such as aid giving so that they give the impression of being already ldquoinrdquo In this case aid giving would not be a reflection of a change in domestic norms and values but it would rather be an example of symbolic activity performed in order to gain status and international recognition

On the domestic level several actors might have contributed to the onset of aid giving First the newly established non-governmental sector started to play a role in the CEE and Baltic countries after the collapse of communism A multitude of philanthropic organizations has emerged in the 1990s and they have attempted to lobby their governments to promote their priorities For example NGOs involved in humanitarian and developmental activities in the CEE and Baltic countries have united in national umbrella associations in order to facilitate policy dialogue with governments (Migliorisi 2003 p31) This suggests a substantial commitment to influence policy making

The collapse of the Soviet Block created a potential for establishing commercial relations virtually anywhere in the world Governments around the world mostly support their private businesses in establishing commercial ties Foreign aid is sometimes used as a tool for facilitating these commercial interests For instance governments can give out aid so the recipient country is more willing to accept donor exports Pressures from private companies could be an important factor contributing to the onset of aid

A development agenda is being adopted and pursued by political parties in Western democracies For example Theacuterien and Noeumll argue that within the OECD countries social-democratic parties have an effect on a countryrsquos level of development assistance (Theacuterien Noeumll 2000) Similarly a foreign aid agenda could be incorporated into political programs of political parties in the emerging donor countries and could have influenced governmental decisions

Finally values held by domestic populations can also influence aid giving Democratic transition has had an impact on the preferences and norms held by individuals in the emerging donor countries Widespread free mass media reach new economic ties and extended possibilities to travel abroad have shaped the perceptions of ordinary citizens toward their countriesrsquo role in the globalized world Being exposed to international affairs also allowed citizens to fully develop their opinions on the role of their countries vis-agrave-vis less developed countries All these new phenomena could have materialized into a support for aid giving

Understanding the onset stage is especially important today when total aid flows have been globally on the rise since 2003 (OECD 2008) and the community of donor countries is growing In the mid-1990rsquos when CEE and Baltic countries started to allocate foreign aid Korea Thailand and Turkey began their transformation into donors of foreign aid as well Later Arab countries like Kuwait Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates joined the donor club Currently China and Russia are also establishing themselves as donors

6

efforts to push more national governments to provide more aid In this environment aid giving has become an international standard for governments in rich countries (Lancaster 2006 p 5) This hypothesis presents a dynamic deserving rigorous testing in the case of emerging donors as well given that most of these countries have undergone economic growth in the recent years This project is an attempt to test the hypothesis particularly in the Central European region III Official Development Assistance (ODA) Foreign aid refers to transfers among governments and between governments and international organizations It can be in the form of cash (grants or concessional loans) in kind (eg food aid) or in the form of debt relief The Development Assistance Committee (DAC) of the OECD uses the official development assistance (ODA) indicator to measure foreign aid flows (OECD 2008) ODA flows are divided into two basic categories multilateral aid (transfers from governments to international organizations) and bilateral aid (transfers from governments to governments)

The aim of ODA transfers is to contribute to economic development and welfare ODA does not include military expenditures subsidies to promote private investment funding for anti-terrorism or other law-enforcement programs bribes costs of representation or private charitable giving (OECD 2007) It is important to keep in mind that foreign aid differs from humanitarian aid which is typically provided in response to humanitarian crises The primary objective of humanitarian aid is to save lives whereas development aid focuses on improving socio-economic conditions ODA is typically measured in US dollars ($) or as a percentage of gross national income (GNI)2

2 The OECD defines GNI as GDP less primary incomes payable to non- resident units plus primary incomes receivable from non-resident units (OECD Glossary of Statistical Terms 2008)

The DAC collects data from OECD members and affiliates regarding ODA flows

Although CEE and Baltic countries are not yet DAC members they have adjusted their national statistics according to DAC methodology and they submit annual reports to the organization Comparable data for the Czech Republic Hungary Poland and the Slovak Republic is available starting in the mid-1990s through the OECD database

This paper aims to reveal trends in overall aid giving among emerging CEE and Baltic donors Absolute ODA and allocations relative to GNI are presented Further I focus on ratios between bilateral and multilateral aid in the case of the Czech Republic Hungary Poland and the Slovak Republic Top bilateral aid recipients for each of these donor countries will be identified Eventually I examine the onset stage in the case of the Czech Republic IV Findings IV1 Total Foreign Aid In all seven examined countries ODAGNI ratios have grown between the years 2001 ndash 2006 The most radical growth can be seen in the case of Hungary and Poland where the ODAGNI ratio grew five times during the course of five years

7

Table 1 ODAGNI ODAGNI ratio (in ) 2001 2006 Poland 002 01 Czech Republic 005 011 Slovak Republic 006 0085 Hungary 002 01 Lithuania 002 0064 Latvia 002 006 Estonia 001 006 Migliorisi Stephano (2003) The Consequences of Enlargement for Development Policy CEC (2006) Communication for the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament ldquoFinancing for Development and Aid Effectiveness ndash The challenges of scaling up EU aid 2006 ndash 2008rdquo

The DAC offers detailed ODA statistics for the Czech Republic Hungary Poland and

the Slovak Republic (Grafs 1-4 source data Appendix 1) The data reveal that total ODA spending grew only incrementally between the years 1998-2002 Substantial growth is traceable since 2003 I attribute this pattern to the process of enlargement in the European Union (EU)

The Czech Republic Hungary Poland and the Slovak Republic together with the three Baltic countries and Cyprus Malta and Slovenia joined the European Union in May of 2004 Prior to accession these countries had to harmonize their national laws and practices according to the European legislature Foreign aid was one of the numerous areas subject to negotiation between the acceding states and the European Commission The applicants agreed to join the EUrsquos development and humanitarian aid framework on the date of their accession EU membership gave the new members the possibility to take part in decision-making on the European level 3

Data indicate that ODAGNI continued to grow in the following years approaching the commitment levels made to the EU Increase in ODA disbursements under EU pressure was

However it has also brought new commitments The countries were asked to restructure their national foreign aid framework to increase development spending and to start paying contributions to the EUrsquos foreign aid budget (European Development Fund)

When examining ODAGNI levels the EU influence is evident In 2003 a year prior the EU accession ODA disbursements double in case of Slovakia and almost doubled in the case of the Czech Republic and Hungary Poland witnessed steep growth of the ODAGNI ratio in the following year

As a new EU member the Czech Republic Hungary Poland and Slovakia took part in the European Council negotiations of 2005 Together with other 20 EU members the countries made a commitment to strive for a goal of 056 of ODAGNI per year However more specific and realistic commitments based on economic potential were negotiated on a country grouping basis Old members committed themselves to 05 of ODAGNI per year The ten new members set a goal of annual 017 of ODAGNI

3 Detailed discussion of the harmonization process and its possible implications for the EU can be found in Granell F (2005)

8

Graphs 1- 4 Bilateral vs Multilateral ODA

Czech Republic Bilateral vs Multilateral ODA

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Year

Multilateral ODA

Bilateral ODA

Slovak Republic Bilateral vs Multilateral ODA

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Year

Multilateral ODABilateral ODA

Poland Bilateral vs Multilateral ODA

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Year

Multilateral ODABilateral ODA

Hungary Bilateral vs Multilateral ODA

0

2040

60

80

100120

140

160

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Year

Multilateral ODA

Bilateral ODA

9

probably opposed by some segments within the new membersrsquo governments Nevertheless membership in the EU was a long-term economic and geopolitical interest of the Thus sacrificing a small fraction of their GNI as foreign aid was a minor cost compared to the benefits of EU membership

However experience from previous waves of enlargement shows that the logic of long-term benefits is oftentimes forgotten once applicants are in the Union 4

Another noticeable trend is that Iraq and Afghanistan have become major recipients of Czech foreign aid since in 2003 The two countries received almost 50 of total Czech bilateral aid in 2003 The flows have decreased since then but Iraq still obtains the most aid of all bilateral recipients Diplomatic purposes behind these disbursements are clear The Czech Republic entered into an alliance with the US and Western European powers after the end of the Cold War

Thus it is likely to expect that after accession new members would relax their commitment to EU membership pre-conditions This trend can be perhaps already witnessed in the case of the Czech Republic Hungary and Slovakia where ODAGNI ratio has decreased slightly in 2007 IV2 Bilateral Aid Are the bilateral allocations of the new donors driven by their interests or the recipients needs McKinlay and Little used these two independent variables to explain aid allocation for the first time in the 1970s (McKinlay Little 1977 1978iiiiii 1979) and they continue to be the most standardized variables today (eg Bearce Tirone 2007) Numerous studies have operationalized the variables in different ways Nevertheless most scholars have included political economic and cultural aspects within the donor interest variable (Neumayer 2003 p 19) I do the same in this research Further I operationalize recipient need based on identification with the group of Least Developed Countries This classification takes into account per capita income and combines it with quality of life indicators (UN World Bank 2006)

In the following section I discuss bilateral flows allocated by the Czech Hungarian Polish and Slovak governments OECD database does not include any data for disbursements from Estonia Latvia and Lithuania Czech Republic receives most attention in this section due to the availability of most detailed data and my most immediate experience with aid management in the country

In the Czech Republic bilateral aid was traditionally dispersed among many recipients in the period of 1998-2000 This dispersion happened mainly because ten ministries used to be responsible for project implementation (Migliorisi 2003) There were attempts to streamline the number of countries receiving aid by identifying eight long-term priority and two mid-term priority countries Yet the effort was not concentrated enough until the late-2000s For example the country carried out over 100 projects in about 35 countries in 2005

Starting in 2001 states of the former Yugoslavia have received more intensive attention According to the amount of total aid received Bosnia-Herzegovina Serbia and Moldova ranked among the top recipients (Appendix 2 Table 1) None of these countries belongs to the group of least developed countries thus the hypothesis of prioritizing based on recipient need can be rejected There are two possible alternative explanations for this choice of recipients First the former Yugoslavia is a region in Southern Europe thus geographical proximity is clearly an advantage when implementing the project Further Slavic populations prevail in all post-Yugoslavian countries The linguistic familiarity can additionally facilitate project management and effectiveness A second alternative explanation suggests that the Czech Republic started to be deeply engaged in former Yugoslavian countries because of the pressure of Czech NGOs Section IV3 will further discuss these hypotheses

4 Expansion of this idea can be found for example in Moravcsik A amp Vaduchova A M (2003) ldquoNational Interest State Power and EU Enlargementrdquo East European Politics and Societies 17(1) 42-57

10

Providing resources for operations conducted by its allies is a most efficient symbol of political support However in the case of Afghanistan altruistic motivations are also present since the country belongs to the group of least developed countries (UN World Bank 2006)

Hungary displays similar yet less distinct patterns than the Czech Republic (Appendix 2 Table 2) Former Yugoslavian countries remain the primary recipients of Hungarian bilateral ODA However Hungary provided a large proportion of its foreign aid to in 2004 and 2006 This timing parallels the military operations of Hungaryrsquos allies in these two countries In 2005 allocations to both Afghanistan and Iraq were only marginal ($ 007 and $ 038 million respectively) and this represents a deviation deserving further qualitative exploration The Polish case displays similar patterns in some regards yet it substantially differs in others The former Yugoslavia has been the highest recipient of Polish between the years 1998 ndash 2006 Nevertheless Polandrsquos disbursements to Iraq and Afghanistan have been rather negligible (Appendix 2 Table 3) This is a rather surprising trend Out of the seven examined countries Poland has traditionally been the closest ally to the US In 2005 President George W Bush asserted that Poland has been a fantastic ally (White House in McNamara 2007 p1) Poland is one of the four leading countries in the coalition for the War on Terror alongside Australia Britain and the US The Polish government initially sent 900 troops to Iraq In 2006 it committed an additional 900 troops to fight the insurgency in Afghanistan (Malkin and agencies 2006) Thus it would be reasonable to expect that US ndash Polish alliance would be reflected in the Polish preferences for top aid recipients However the evidence shows the opposite Iraq and Afghanistan received in 2006 only $047 million and $055 million respectively which refutes the hypothesis of political alliance between the US and Poland influencing aid disbursements Furthermore Poland shows a consistent commitment to Kazakhstan a former Soviet Republic With an annual PPP GDP of $ 10400 and 73 growth rate (CIA Fact sheet) Kazakhstan does not belong to the group of least developed countries Thus I refute altruistic explanation for this commitment On the contrary I hypothesize that this commitment is related to the fact that Kazakhstan possesses enormous fossil fuel reserves and plentiful supplies of other minerals and metals which could be potentially beneficial to the Polish economy In 2005 and 2006 Poland allocated relatively substantial sums to Belarus Ukraine and Uzbekistan three other post-Soviet countries It is too early to state whether these allocations represent a major trend However a potential explanation for these allocations could be a mix of economic considerations (especially in the case of Uzbekistan) connected with geographical proximity and cultural similarity For Slovakia as is the case with the other three new donors the primary focus has been the former Yugoslavia Afghanistan established itself as one of the major recipients of Slovak aid between 2004 and 2006 A combination of donor political interests and recipient need is probably reflected in this trend Afghanistan has been a major target for Western intervention and at the same time it belongs to the group of least developed countries Sudan has been a recipient of Slovak aid between the years of 2002 and 2006 which comprises the entire period of recorded Slovak bilateral disbursements In 2005 and 2006 Sudan became the biggest recipient of Slovak aid substantially ahead of other recipients Slovakia does not have any political nor economic interests in Sudan Sudan is a longstanding member of the least developed countries group thus it is of great need of foreign assistance Slovaks allocations seem to be responding to this need

In conclusion all four examined countries display a clear common pattern in their focus on the states from the former Yugoslavia which is probably motivated by geographical and cultural proximity While the Czech Republic Hungary and Slovakia strengthen their political alliance with Western powers thorough generous allocations to Afghanistan and Iraq Poland focuses on Kazakhstan a resourceful country once a part of the Soviet block Slovak allocations to Sudan seem to indicate altruistic motivations

11

IV3 Czech Republic Case Study Capacity Building What were the forces that shaped the onset stage of aid giving Has the institutional framework of the new economic policy towards developing countries developed as a result of domestic or international incentives

In 1995 the Czech Republic became a member of the OECD which fosters cooperation among developed democracies Within the organization the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) aims at improving governmental policies towards developing countries The Czech Republic obtained the status of an observer in 1996 which allowed it to participate in DAC activities without partaking in any negotiations

The DAC introduced Czech public sector administrators to its methods of collecting information on foreign aid flows in the second part of the 1990s Since then the country has adopted the concept of official development assistance as the principal unit for measuring its foreign aid disbursements Data based on the OECD methodology are available for the first time for the year 1999 Czech ODA in this year was $ 2642 million or 0027 of the GNI

In 1999 the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) launched a series of projects which aimed to create national capacities for international development cooperation Several administrators were trained in order to understand foreign aid concepts and managerial tools Further Czech administrators were able to visit developing countries and learn about the needs of potential aid recipients The UNDP financed the founding of the Development Center The Center was created outside of governmental structures at a research institute for international relations The main objective of the Center has been to carry out consultative services to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs which forms governmental strategies for foreign aid In doing so the Center has helped with the design of national policy for cooperation with developing countries The UNDP ceased capacity-building activities in 2004 just as the Czech government was about to enter the European Union The total of contributions from the UNDP towards Czech capacity-building has reached over USD 1 million over the course of five years The Czech government complemented the UNDP budget with an additional USD 012 million

In 2002 the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) which has a strong international reputation as a foreign aid agency launched a program for strengthening ODA delivery agencies in the Czech Republic Hungary Poland and Slovakia This five-year long project aimed to spend USD 15 million in order to increase the amount and quality of assistance given by new donors to developing countries The project has been divided into two phases The focus in the first phase was institutional support and capacity building The second phase was centered on trilateral cooperation when the CIDA and a new donor conduct projects in developing countries together The first phase in which the Czech Republic received training and technical assistance finished in 2004 when the CIDA declared the Czech institutional capacities as sufficient The second phase of trilateral cooperation finished in 2007 In 2008 the Development Center became a Development Agency fully comparable to those of OECDDAC members

The impact of CIDArsquos assistance on capacity building has been smaller than the UNDPrsquos impact Most of the resources allocated for the Czech Republic were further used for projects in developing countries However the collaboration of Czech administrators with their Canadian counterparts in project management led to significant know-how transfers for the Czech specialists

The aforementioned evidence shows that the initial setup for foreign aid management in the Czech Republic was heavily shaped by international institutions The OECD through the DAC provided expertise in policy design and introduced basic concepts used for aid processing The UNDP and CIDA financed national capacity building These organizations trained Czech

12

administrators to become experts in foreign aid and also were the force behind the origin of new institutional capacities which are now concentrated in the Czech Development Agency and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Bilateral Aid I have identified the states from the former Yugoslavia as the biggest recipients of Czech ODA In this section I claim that the Czech government has consistently been engaged in these countries because of pressure from domestic NGOrsquos

People in Need (PIN) is by far the largest non-governmental organization providing relief aid and development assistance in the Czech Republic It is one of the largest organizations of its kind in post-communist Europe and has administered projects in thirty-seven countries over the past fourteen years The annual budget of PIN in 2005 was 109 million EURO ($ 137 million) (King Exnerova Blazek eds 2006)

PIN began in 1992 when dissidents and leaders of the Czechoslovak Velvet Revolution teamed with conflict journalists working for the Czech Public Service Television They aimed to provide humanitarian aid to the civil war torn region of Nagorno-Karabakh (former USSR) Since then the activities of the organization have proliferated Although the organization works in fourteen countries in Asia Europe and Africa the main focus of its work has remained in the countries of the former Soviet Union or the former Soviet bloc The organization has been primarily involved in Ukraine Moldova and Tajikistan Throughout the nineties it provided robust assistance during the humanitarian interventions in the war-torn countries of the former Yugoslavia and later during the reconstruction of these areas According to PINrsquos long-term plan the organization would like to further contribute to the reconstruction of the countries of the former Yugoslavia The cultural similarities between the Czech Republic and the region of the Balkan should facilitate such assistance

Caritas is another organization working in the field of foreign humanitarian and development assistance Because the main objective of the organization is provision of social services in the Czech Republic the magnitude of its foreign projects is limited In 2005 the resources allocated to the activities abroad reached $ 16 million which was approximately one tenth of PINrsquos budget (Caritas 2006) Throughout the nineties the organization worked in Chechnya Georgia Ukraine Moldova and the countries of the Balkan which have received priority throughout the 1990s and in the beginning of the 21st century

Both organizations started their activities in former USSR countries and in the Balkan prior to the intensification of governmental flows into these countries The projects were primarily funded by donations or through multilateral agencies Later on governmental funding played a substantial role It is reasonable to expect that this change has occurred due to pressure from these organizations The government might have been easily willing to accommodate the NGOs as their experience in the regions ensured the quality and sustainability of projects Multilateral Aid Czech multilateral ODA disbursements (Graph 5) have followed a similar pattern as total ODA (Graph 1 p10) Multilateral ODA remained rather constant between the years 2000 ndash 2003 Starting in 2004 a dramatic increase occurred I have attributed this growth to entry into the EU in section IV1 This explanation is further reinforced when looking at the specific recipients of multilateral aid The European Union is by far the largest recipient following the year of the countryrsquos accession into the Union The importance of other recipients is decreasing or remains constant as in the case of the UN

13

Graph 5 Czech Republic Multilateral ODA Disbursements

Czech Republic Multilateral ODA Disbursements

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Year

UnspecifiedEC

UN

V Preliminary Conclusion When relating the findings to the theoretical framework outlined in the introductory sections the following conclusions can be made First the case of the Czech Republic suggests that the onset of aid giving has primarily been driven by the international arena Intergovernmental and overseas governmental organizations provided the financial support necessary for capacity building They have also offered substantial transfer of foreign aid know-how Domestic actors such as political parties or non- governmental sector have not played a major role at this stage

Second evidence for the Czech Republic Hungary Poland and Slovakia reveals that the EU an international actor has played a major role in determining current ODA levels Significant growth of total ODA is evident only after the EU mandated and presented it as one of many conditions for EU accession The underlying influence of the EU also manifests itself in the multilateral aid disbursements of the Czech Republic where the vast majority of the funds go to the European Union budget

Third several trends show up when analyzing bilateral allocations For the Czech Republic Hungary Poland and Slovakia post-Yugoslavian nations have been primary recipients of foreign aid Pragmatism rather than altruism derived from recipient need is probably behind this pattern Geographical proximity cultural similarity and a shared experience of a communist past are factors potentially leading to effectiveness in aid allocations The case of the Czech Republic suggests that the non-governmental sector played a constitutive role in prioritizing former Yugoslavian countries

Starting mid-2000s the prioritizing of Afghanistan and Iraq in the Czech Hungarian and Slovak aid disbursements implies that the donors seek to strengthen their political coalition with Western powers Yet donor interest is combined with recipient need in the case of Afghanistan since the country is included on the list of least developed countries

Polish bilateral aid has also been strongly shaped by donor interest but one of a different nature As the country focuses on Kazakhstan natural resources endowed country with rapidly growing GNI economic interest is paramount

Lastly Slovak focus on Sudan in the last couple of years could represent a genuine altruistic response to recipient needs as Sudan belongs to the group of least developed countries (UN World Bank 2006) However it is too soon to conclude if allocations to Sudan form a long-term pattern or is they are merely isolated events without a solid institutional anchor

14

Overall donorsrsquo interest prevails over recipient need when analyzing bilateral allocations Yet different interests motivate the direction of bilateral disbursements Evidence suggests that political and economic motivations are the most frequent ones Recipient need is being reflected primarily when combined with donor interest Isolated instances of altruism occur sporadically

15

Appendix 1 Tables 1 ndash 4 Total Bilateral and Multilateral ODA

Donor Czech Republic Amount Constant Prices (2006 $ millions) Type of flow Net Disbursements Year 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Type of aid ODA 2769 2642 3173 4881 7004 11896 12419 14492 16086 15504 ODAGNI 003 003 003 005 007 011 011 011 012 011 Bilateral ODA 1006 1185 1249 2753 4832 10558 7288 6906 777 7377 Multilateral ODA 1763 1457 1924 2128 2173 1339 5131 7587 8316 8127

UN Agencies 1034 698 634 477 524 57 EC 3854 6619 6874 7167

Unspecified 1924 2128 1139 641 643 491 918 39

Donor Hungary Amount Constant Prices (2006 $ millions) Type of flow Net Disbursements Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Type of aid ODA 2501 716 9866 14949 7487 ODAGNI 003 007 011 014 007 Bilateral ODA 1637 3623 3889 8434 2813 Multilateral ODA 866 3536 5978 6515 4674

16

Donor Poland Amount Constant Prices (2006 $ millions) Type of flow Net Disbursements Year 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Type of aid ODA 2758 3208 4646 5226 2041 3693 14399 21656 29679 30628 ODAGNI 001 001 002 002 NA 001 005 007 009 009 Bilateral ODA 2012 2313 2104 4515 1273 2576 305 5072 11899 12426 Multilateral ODA 745 895 2541 711 769 1118 11349 16584 1778 18202

UN Agencies 966 398 EC 9376 1707

Unspecified 1007 16584 1778 734

Donor Slovak Republic Amount Constant Prices (2006 $ millions) Type of flow Net Disbursements Year 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Type of aid ODA 1445 1172 1648 1192 2084 3227 6032 5511 5546 ODAGNI 004 003 004 002 005 007 012 01 009 Bilateral ODA 805 342 675 664 1177 1229 3301 2475 2265 Multilateral ODA 64 83 973 528 905 1997 273 3036 3281

Appendix 2 Tables 1 ndash 4 Top 3 Recipients of Bilateral ODA Donor Czech Republic Amount Constant Prices (2006) $ million Type of flow ODA net disbursements

Year Country $ million 1998 1 Palestinian-Administered Territory 166

2 Vietnam 070 3 Bosnia-Herzegovina 053 Former Yugoslavia (total) 102

1999 1 Palestinian-Administered Territory 150

2 China 066 3 Bosnia-Herzegovina 055 Former Yugoslavia (total) 139

2000 1 Palestinian-Administered Territory 169 2 Mongolia 094 3 Bosnia-Herzegovina 092 Former Yugoslavia (total) 145

2001 1 Serbia 518 2 Vietnam 177 3 India 197 4 Moldova 171 Former Yugoslavia (total) 829

2002 1 Former Yugoslavia (total) 1100 2 India 221 3 Georgia 153 Former Yugoslavia (total) 1290

2003 1 Iraq 5250 2 Afghanistan 804 3 Serbia amp Montenegro 545 Former Yugoslavia (total) 1440

2004 1 Iraq 1568 2 Serbia amp Montenegro 790 3 Afghanistan 698 Former Yugoslavia (total) 1090

2005 1 Iraq 872 2 Serbia amp Montenegro 689 3 Ukraine 495 Former Yugoslavia (total) 1050

18

18

Donor Czech Republic Amount Constant Prices (2006) $ million Type of flow ODA net disbursements

Year Country $ million 2006 1 Iraq 118

2 Serbia 6 3 Afghanistan 42 Former Yugoslavia (total) 106

Donor Hungary Amount Constant Prices (2006) $ million Type of flow ODA net disbursements

Year Country $ million 2003 1 Serbia 305

2 Vietnam 052 3 Croatia 054 Former Yugoslavia (total) 55

2004 1 Bosnia-Herzegovina 1920 2 Serbia 332 3 Iraq 181 4 Afghanistan 166 Former Yugoslavia (total) 2314

2005 1 Serbia 1012 2 Yemen 986 3 Tanzania 941 Former Yugoslavia (total) 1023

2006 1 Iraq 6715 2 Afghanistan 039 3 Vietnam 031

Former Yugoslavia (total) 059

Donor Poland Amount Constant Prices (2006) $ million Type of flow ODA net disbursements

Year Country $ million 1998 1 Bosnia-Herzegovina 373

2 Vietnam 326 3 Kazakhstan 214 Former Yugoslavia (total) 419

19

19

Donor Poland Amount Constant Prices (2006) $ million Type of flow ODA net disbursements

Year Country $ million 1999 1 Bosnia-Herzegovina 355

2 Macedonia 282 3 Kazakhstan 234 Former Yugoslavia (total) 897

2000 1 Argentina 519 2 Kazakhstan 316 3 Vietnam 164 Former Yugoslavia (total) 174

2001 1 Yemen 347 2 Kazakhstan 256 3 Vietnam 232 Former Yugoslavia (total) 114

2002 1 China 528 2 Kazakhstan 24 3 Vietnam 044 Former Yugoslavia (total) 092

2003 1 Serbia 152 2 Kazakhstan 24 3 China 202 Former Yugoslavia (total) 157

2004 1 Ethiopia 107 2 Serbia 997 3 China 19 4 Kazakhstan 162 Former Yugoslavia (total) 104

2005 1 Serbia 198 2 Ukraine 651 3 Uzbekistan 63 Former Yugoslavia (total) 204

2006 1 Angola 924 2 Ukraine 651 3 Belarus 677 Former Yugoslavia (total) 175

20

20

Donor Slovak Republic Amount Constant Prices (2006) $ million Type of flow ODA net disbursements

Year $ million 2002 1 Former Yugoslavia (total) 083

2 Sudan 018 3 Kenya 016

2003 1 Former Yugoslavia (total) 307 2 Iraq 113 3 Kenya 039

2004 1 Former Yugoslavia (total) 364 2 Hong Kong China 158 3 Georgia 054 4 Afghanistan 043

2005 1 Sudan 1857 2 Afghanistan 474 3 Former Yugoslavia (total) 408

2006 1 Sudan 1498 2 Afghanistan 154 3 Mongolia 064

21

21

Reference Alesina A amp Dollar D (2000) Who Gives Foreign Aid to Whom and Why Journal of

Economic Growth 5 33-63 Bearce D H amp Tirone D C (2007) Foreign Aid Recipient Growth and the Strategic Goals

of Donor Governments manuscript for APSA 2007 Bertheacutelemy J-C amp Tichit A (2004) Bilateral donors aid allocations decisions - a three-

dimensional panel analysis International Review of Economics and Finance Caritas (2006) Vyrocni zprava 2005 Praha Ceska katolicka charita CEC (2006) Communication for the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament

Financing for Development and Aid Effectiveness ndash The challenges of scaling up EU aid 2006 ndash 2008

Granell F (2005) Can the Fifth Enlargement Weaken the EUs Development Cooperation Jean MonnetRobert Schuman Paper Series 5(24 August)

Isenman P (1976) Biases in Aid Allocations Against Poorer and Larger Countries World Development 44 631-641 King M Exnerova V Blazek O Eds (2006) Annual Report 2005 Prague People In Need

Lancaster C (2007) Foreign Aid Chicago and London The University of Chicago Press Maizels A amp Nissanke M K (1984) Motivations for Aid to Developing Countries World

Development 12(9) 870-900 Malkin B amp agencies (2006) Poland to Send More Troops to Afghanistan Guardian

Unlimited September 14 Retrieved 2202008 from wwwguardiancoukafghanistanstory0187212500html

McKinlay R D amp Little R (1977) A Foreign Policy Model of US Bilateral Aid Allocations World Politics 30 58-86

McKinlay R D amp Little R (1978i) The French Aid Relationship A Foreign Policy Model of the Disribution of French Bilateral Aid 1964-1970 Development and Change 9 459-478

McKinlay R D amp Little R (1978ii) A Foreign-Policy Model of the Distribution of British Billateral Aid1960-1970 British Journal of Political Science 8 313-331

McKinlay R D amp Little R (1978iii) The German Aid Relationship A Test of the Recipient Need and the Donor Interest 1960-1970 European Journal of Political Research 6 235-257

McKinlay R D amp Little R (1979) The US Aid Relationship A Test of the Recipient Need and the Donor Interest Model Political Studies 27 236-250

McNamara S (2007) ldquoThe PolishndashAmerican Relationship Deepening and Strengthening the Alliancerdquo Backgrounder 2010 February 27 1-13

Migliorisi S (2003) The Consequences of Enlargement for Development Policy (a report for European Commission)

Moravcsik A amp Vaduchova A M (2003) National Interest State Power and EU Enlargement East European Politics and Societies 17(1) 42-57

Morgenthau H (1962) A Political Theory of Foreign Aid The American Political Science Review 56(2) 301-309

Neumayer E (2003) The Pattern of Aid Giving London and New York Routledge OECD (2008) Glossary of Statistical Terms Retrieved 5282008 from

httpstatsoecdorgglossarydetailaspID=1176 OECD (2008) Development Cooperation Report 2007 (Summary) OECD-DAC (2007) DACs Glossary Retrieved 2202008 from

Schraeder P J Hook S W amp Taylor B (1998) ldquoClarifying the Foreign Aid Puzzle A

httpwwwoecdorgglossary02586en_2649_33721_1965693_1_1_1_100html1965586

22

22

Comparison of American Japanese French and Swedish Aid Flowsrdquo World Politics 50(2) 294-323

Snyder J (2004) One World Rival Theories Foreign Policy (NovDec) 52-62 Theacuterien J-P amp Noeumll A (2000) ldquoPolitical Parties and Foreign Aidrdquo American Political Science

Review 94 (March)(1) 151-162 UNDP (2008) The Human Development Report 20072008 Technical Note UN World Bank (2006) Measuring Progress in Least Developed Countries a statistical profile Waltz K (1979) Theory of International Politics New York Random House

  • R Schuman
    • Vol 5 No 19
    • December 2008
      • Introduction
      • This research aims to contribute to understanding why countries give foreign aid It focuses on the new donors of Central-Eastern Europe (the Czech Republic Hungary Poland and Slovakia) and the Baltic states (Estonia Latvia Lithuania) These cou

5

reasonable to expect that the US could also pressure CEE and Baltic governments in order to obtain specific aid flow configurations more in tune with its strategic preferences

Lancaster claims that at the beginning the 21st

Lancaster claims that international organizations increasingly promote the solidarity of advanced countries with the less developed world and that such organizations are persistent their

century aid has increasingly become a norm supported by domestic governments and a substantial part of their constituencies in advanced democracies Western donors no longer question whether they should give aid or not (Lancaster 2006) Emerging donors in the sample have undergone a successful transition from authoritarianism to democracy Onset of aid giving can mean that the new democracies have adopted the values of international solidarity together with democratic standards Recognition that aid giving is a standard adopted by advanced countries can also have a distinct effect on the new democracies These countries are aiming to ldquocatch-uprdquo with their Western counterparts For example typical benchmarks for assessing progress in the two examined regions are economic performance levels of social spending and standards of living in the old EU member states From this catching up perspective national governments can decide to mimic the activities of the ldquorich country clubrdquo such as aid giving so that they give the impression of being already ldquoinrdquo In this case aid giving would not be a reflection of a change in domestic norms and values but it would rather be an example of symbolic activity performed in order to gain status and international recognition

On the domestic level several actors might have contributed to the onset of aid giving First the newly established non-governmental sector started to play a role in the CEE and Baltic countries after the collapse of communism A multitude of philanthropic organizations has emerged in the 1990s and they have attempted to lobby their governments to promote their priorities For example NGOs involved in humanitarian and developmental activities in the CEE and Baltic countries have united in national umbrella associations in order to facilitate policy dialogue with governments (Migliorisi 2003 p31) This suggests a substantial commitment to influence policy making

The collapse of the Soviet Block created a potential for establishing commercial relations virtually anywhere in the world Governments around the world mostly support their private businesses in establishing commercial ties Foreign aid is sometimes used as a tool for facilitating these commercial interests For instance governments can give out aid so the recipient country is more willing to accept donor exports Pressures from private companies could be an important factor contributing to the onset of aid

A development agenda is being adopted and pursued by political parties in Western democracies For example Theacuterien and Noeumll argue that within the OECD countries social-democratic parties have an effect on a countryrsquos level of development assistance (Theacuterien Noeumll 2000) Similarly a foreign aid agenda could be incorporated into political programs of political parties in the emerging donor countries and could have influenced governmental decisions

Finally values held by domestic populations can also influence aid giving Democratic transition has had an impact on the preferences and norms held by individuals in the emerging donor countries Widespread free mass media reach new economic ties and extended possibilities to travel abroad have shaped the perceptions of ordinary citizens toward their countriesrsquo role in the globalized world Being exposed to international affairs also allowed citizens to fully develop their opinions on the role of their countries vis-agrave-vis less developed countries All these new phenomena could have materialized into a support for aid giving

Understanding the onset stage is especially important today when total aid flows have been globally on the rise since 2003 (OECD 2008) and the community of donor countries is growing In the mid-1990rsquos when CEE and Baltic countries started to allocate foreign aid Korea Thailand and Turkey began their transformation into donors of foreign aid as well Later Arab countries like Kuwait Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates joined the donor club Currently China and Russia are also establishing themselves as donors

6

efforts to push more national governments to provide more aid In this environment aid giving has become an international standard for governments in rich countries (Lancaster 2006 p 5) This hypothesis presents a dynamic deserving rigorous testing in the case of emerging donors as well given that most of these countries have undergone economic growth in the recent years This project is an attempt to test the hypothesis particularly in the Central European region III Official Development Assistance (ODA) Foreign aid refers to transfers among governments and between governments and international organizations It can be in the form of cash (grants or concessional loans) in kind (eg food aid) or in the form of debt relief The Development Assistance Committee (DAC) of the OECD uses the official development assistance (ODA) indicator to measure foreign aid flows (OECD 2008) ODA flows are divided into two basic categories multilateral aid (transfers from governments to international organizations) and bilateral aid (transfers from governments to governments)

The aim of ODA transfers is to contribute to economic development and welfare ODA does not include military expenditures subsidies to promote private investment funding for anti-terrorism or other law-enforcement programs bribes costs of representation or private charitable giving (OECD 2007) It is important to keep in mind that foreign aid differs from humanitarian aid which is typically provided in response to humanitarian crises The primary objective of humanitarian aid is to save lives whereas development aid focuses on improving socio-economic conditions ODA is typically measured in US dollars ($) or as a percentage of gross national income (GNI)2

2 The OECD defines GNI as GDP less primary incomes payable to non- resident units plus primary incomes receivable from non-resident units (OECD Glossary of Statistical Terms 2008)

The DAC collects data from OECD members and affiliates regarding ODA flows

Although CEE and Baltic countries are not yet DAC members they have adjusted their national statistics according to DAC methodology and they submit annual reports to the organization Comparable data for the Czech Republic Hungary Poland and the Slovak Republic is available starting in the mid-1990s through the OECD database

This paper aims to reveal trends in overall aid giving among emerging CEE and Baltic donors Absolute ODA and allocations relative to GNI are presented Further I focus on ratios between bilateral and multilateral aid in the case of the Czech Republic Hungary Poland and the Slovak Republic Top bilateral aid recipients for each of these donor countries will be identified Eventually I examine the onset stage in the case of the Czech Republic IV Findings IV1 Total Foreign Aid In all seven examined countries ODAGNI ratios have grown between the years 2001 ndash 2006 The most radical growth can be seen in the case of Hungary and Poland where the ODAGNI ratio grew five times during the course of five years

7

Table 1 ODAGNI ODAGNI ratio (in ) 2001 2006 Poland 002 01 Czech Republic 005 011 Slovak Republic 006 0085 Hungary 002 01 Lithuania 002 0064 Latvia 002 006 Estonia 001 006 Migliorisi Stephano (2003) The Consequences of Enlargement for Development Policy CEC (2006) Communication for the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament ldquoFinancing for Development and Aid Effectiveness ndash The challenges of scaling up EU aid 2006 ndash 2008rdquo

The DAC offers detailed ODA statistics for the Czech Republic Hungary Poland and

the Slovak Republic (Grafs 1-4 source data Appendix 1) The data reveal that total ODA spending grew only incrementally between the years 1998-2002 Substantial growth is traceable since 2003 I attribute this pattern to the process of enlargement in the European Union (EU)

The Czech Republic Hungary Poland and the Slovak Republic together with the three Baltic countries and Cyprus Malta and Slovenia joined the European Union in May of 2004 Prior to accession these countries had to harmonize their national laws and practices according to the European legislature Foreign aid was one of the numerous areas subject to negotiation between the acceding states and the European Commission The applicants agreed to join the EUrsquos development and humanitarian aid framework on the date of their accession EU membership gave the new members the possibility to take part in decision-making on the European level 3

Data indicate that ODAGNI continued to grow in the following years approaching the commitment levels made to the EU Increase in ODA disbursements under EU pressure was

However it has also brought new commitments The countries were asked to restructure their national foreign aid framework to increase development spending and to start paying contributions to the EUrsquos foreign aid budget (European Development Fund)

When examining ODAGNI levels the EU influence is evident In 2003 a year prior the EU accession ODA disbursements double in case of Slovakia and almost doubled in the case of the Czech Republic and Hungary Poland witnessed steep growth of the ODAGNI ratio in the following year

As a new EU member the Czech Republic Hungary Poland and Slovakia took part in the European Council negotiations of 2005 Together with other 20 EU members the countries made a commitment to strive for a goal of 056 of ODAGNI per year However more specific and realistic commitments based on economic potential were negotiated on a country grouping basis Old members committed themselves to 05 of ODAGNI per year The ten new members set a goal of annual 017 of ODAGNI

3 Detailed discussion of the harmonization process and its possible implications for the EU can be found in Granell F (2005)

8

Graphs 1- 4 Bilateral vs Multilateral ODA

Czech Republic Bilateral vs Multilateral ODA

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Year

Multilateral ODA

Bilateral ODA

Slovak Republic Bilateral vs Multilateral ODA

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Year

Multilateral ODABilateral ODA

Poland Bilateral vs Multilateral ODA

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Year

Multilateral ODABilateral ODA

Hungary Bilateral vs Multilateral ODA

0

2040

60

80

100120

140

160

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Year

Multilateral ODA

Bilateral ODA

9

probably opposed by some segments within the new membersrsquo governments Nevertheless membership in the EU was a long-term economic and geopolitical interest of the Thus sacrificing a small fraction of their GNI as foreign aid was a minor cost compared to the benefits of EU membership

However experience from previous waves of enlargement shows that the logic of long-term benefits is oftentimes forgotten once applicants are in the Union 4

Another noticeable trend is that Iraq and Afghanistan have become major recipients of Czech foreign aid since in 2003 The two countries received almost 50 of total Czech bilateral aid in 2003 The flows have decreased since then but Iraq still obtains the most aid of all bilateral recipients Diplomatic purposes behind these disbursements are clear The Czech Republic entered into an alliance with the US and Western European powers after the end of the Cold War

Thus it is likely to expect that after accession new members would relax their commitment to EU membership pre-conditions This trend can be perhaps already witnessed in the case of the Czech Republic Hungary and Slovakia where ODAGNI ratio has decreased slightly in 2007 IV2 Bilateral Aid Are the bilateral allocations of the new donors driven by their interests or the recipients needs McKinlay and Little used these two independent variables to explain aid allocation for the first time in the 1970s (McKinlay Little 1977 1978iiiiii 1979) and they continue to be the most standardized variables today (eg Bearce Tirone 2007) Numerous studies have operationalized the variables in different ways Nevertheless most scholars have included political economic and cultural aspects within the donor interest variable (Neumayer 2003 p 19) I do the same in this research Further I operationalize recipient need based on identification with the group of Least Developed Countries This classification takes into account per capita income and combines it with quality of life indicators (UN World Bank 2006)

In the following section I discuss bilateral flows allocated by the Czech Hungarian Polish and Slovak governments OECD database does not include any data for disbursements from Estonia Latvia and Lithuania Czech Republic receives most attention in this section due to the availability of most detailed data and my most immediate experience with aid management in the country

In the Czech Republic bilateral aid was traditionally dispersed among many recipients in the period of 1998-2000 This dispersion happened mainly because ten ministries used to be responsible for project implementation (Migliorisi 2003) There were attempts to streamline the number of countries receiving aid by identifying eight long-term priority and two mid-term priority countries Yet the effort was not concentrated enough until the late-2000s For example the country carried out over 100 projects in about 35 countries in 2005

Starting in 2001 states of the former Yugoslavia have received more intensive attention According to the amount of total aid received Bosnia-Herzegovina Serbia and Moldova ranked among the top recipients (Appendix 2 Table 1) None of these countries belongs to the group of least developed countries thus the hypothesis of prioritizing based on recipient need can be rejected There are two possible alternative explanations for this choice of recipients First the former Yugoslavia is a region in Southern Europe thus geographical proximity is clearly an advantage when implementing the project Further Slavic populations prevail in all post-Yugoslavian countries The linguistic familiarity can additionally facilitate project management and effectiveness A second alternative explanation suggests that the Czech Republic started to be deeply engaged in former Yugoslavian countries because of the pressure of Czech NGOs Section IV3 will further discuss these hypotheses

4 Expansion of this idea can be found for example in Moravcsik A amp Vaduchova A M (2003) ldquoNational Interest State Power and EU Enlargementrdquo East European Politics and Societies 17(1) 42-57

10

Providing resources for operations conducted by its allies is a most efficient symbol of political support However in the case of Afghanistan altruistic motivations are also present since the country belongs to the group of least developed countries (UN World Bank 2006)

Hungary displays similar yet less distinct patterns than the Czech Republic (Appendix 2 Table 2) Former Yugoslavian countries remain the primary recipients of Hungarian bilateral ODA However Hungary provided a large proportion of its foreign aid to in 2004 and 2006 This timing parallels the military operations of Hungaryrsquos allies in these two countries In 2005 allocations to both Afghanistan and Iraq were only marginal ($ 007 and $ 038 million respectively) and this represents a deviation deserving further qualitative exploration The Polish case displays similar patterns in some regards yet it substantially differs in others The former Yugoslavia has been the highest recipient of Polish between the years 1998 ndash 2006 Nevertheless Polandrsquos disbursements to Iraq and Afghanistan have been rather negligible (Appendix 2 Table 3) This is a rather surprising trend Out of the seven examined countries Poland has traditionally been the closest ally to the US In 2005 President George W Bush asserted that Poland has been a fantastic ally (White House in McNamara 2007 p1) Poland is one of the four leading countries in the coalition for the War on Terror alongside Australia Britain and the US The Polish government initially sent 900 troops to Iraq In 2006 it committed an additional 900 troops to fight the insurgency in Afghanistan (Malkin and agencies 2006) Thus it would be reasonable to expect that US ndash Polish alliance would be reflected in the Polish preferences for top aid recipients However the evidence shows the opposite Iraq and Afghanistan received in 2006 only $047 million and $055 million respectively which refutes the hypothesis of political alliance between the US and Poland influencing aid disbursements Furthermore Poland shows a consistent commitment to Kazakhstan a former Soviet Republic With an annual PPP GDP of $ 10400 and 73 growth rate (CIA Fact sheet) Kazakhstan does not belong to the group of least developed countries Thus I refute altruistic explanation for this commitment On the contrary I hypothesize that this commitment is related to the fact that Kazakhstan possesses enormous fossil fuel reserves and plentiful supplies of other minerals and metals which could be potentially beneficial to the Polish economy In 2005 and 2006 Poland allocated relatively substantial sums to Belarus Ukraine and Uzbekistan three other post-Soviet countries It is too early to state whether these allocations represent a major trend However a potential explanation for these allocations could be a mix of economic considerations (especially in the case of Uzbekistan) connected with geographical proximity and cultural similarity For Slovakia as is the case with the other three new donors the primary focus has been the former Yugoslavia Afghanistan established itself as one of the major recipients of Slovak aid between 2004 and 2006 A combination of donor political interests and recipient need is probably reflected in this trend Afghanistan has been a major target for Western intervention and at the same time it belongs to the group of least developed countries Sudan has been a recipient of Slovak aid between the years of 2002 and 2006 which comprises the entire period of recorded Slovak bilateral disbursements In 2005 and 2006 Sudan became the biggest recipient of Slovak aid substantially ahead of other recipients Slovakia does not have any political nor economic interests in Sudan Sudan is a longstanding member of the least developed countries group thus it is of great need of foreign assistance Slovaks allocations seem to be responding to this need

In conclusion all four examined countries display a clear common pattern in their focus on the states from the former Yugoslavia which is probably motivated by geographical and cultural proximity While the Czech Republic Hungary and Slovakia strengthen their political alliance with Western powers thorough generous allocations to Afghanistan and Iraq Poland focuses on Kazakhstan a resourceful country once a part of the Soviet block Slovak allocations to Sudan seem to indicate altruistic motivations

11

IV3 Czech Republic Case Study Capacity Building What were the forces that shaped the onset stage of aid giving Has the institutional framework of the new economic policy towards developing countries developed as a result of domestic or international incentives

In 1995 the Czech Republic became a member of the OECD which fosters cooperation among developed democracies Within the organization the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) aims at improving governmental policies towards developing countries The Czech Republic obtained the status of an observer in 1996 which allowed it to participate in DAC activities without partaking in any negotiations

The DAC introduced Czech public sector administrators to its methods of collecting information on foreign aid flows in the second part of the 1990s Since then the country has adopted the concept of official development assistance as the principal unit for measuring its foreign aid disbursements Data based on the OECD methodology are available for the first time for the year 1999 Czech ODA in this year was $ 2642 million or 0027 of the GNI

In 1999 the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) launched a series of projects which aimed to create national capacities for international development cooperation Several administrators were trained in order to understand foreign aid concepts and managerial tools Further Czech administrators were able to visit developing countries and learn about the needs of potential aid recipients The UNDP financed the founding of the Development Center The Center was created outside of governmental structures at a research institute for international relations The main objective of the Center has been to carry out consultative services to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs which forms governmental strategies for foreign aid In doing so the Center has helped with the design of national policy for cooperation with developing countries The UNDP ceased capacity-building activities in 2004 just as the Czech government was about to enter the European Union The total of contributions from the UNDP towards Czech capacity-building has reached over USD 1 million over the course of five years The Czech government complemented the UNDP budget with an additional USD 012 million

In 2002 the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) which has a strong international reputation as a foreign aid agency launched a program for strengthening ODA delivery agencies in the Czech Republic Hungary Poland and Slovakia This five-year long project aimed to spend USD 15 million in order to increase the amount and quality of assistance given by new donors to developing countries The project has been divided into two phases The focus in the first phase was institutional support and capacity building The second phase was centered on trilateral cooperation when the CIDA and a new donor conduct projects in developing countries together The first phase in which the Czech Republic received training and technical assistance finished in 2004 when the CIDA declared the Czech institutional capacities as sufficient The second phase of trilateral cooperation finished in 2007 In 2008 the Development Center became a Development Agency fully comparable to those of OECDDAC members

The impact of CIDArsquos assistance on capacity building has been smaller than the UNDPrsquos impact Most of the resources allocated for the Czech Republic were further used for projects in developing countries However the collaboration of Czech administrators with their Canadian counterparts in project management led to significant know-how transfers for the Czech specialists

The aforementioned evidence shows that the initial setup for foreign aid management in the Czech Republic was heavily shaped by international institutions The OECD through the DAC provided expertise in policy design and introduced basic concepts used for aid processing The UNDP and CIDA financed national capacity building These organizations trained Czech

12

administrators to become experts in foreign aid and also were the force behind the origin of new institutional capacities which are now concentrated in the Czech Development Agency and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Bilateral Aid I have identified the states from the former Yugoslavia as the biggest recipients of Czech ODA In this section I claim that the Czech government has consistently been engaged in these countries because of pressure from domestic NGOrsquos

People in Need (PIN) is by far the largest non-governmental organization providing relief aid and development assistance in the Czech Republic It is one of the largest organizations of its kind in post-communist Europe and has administered projects in thirty-seven countries over the past fourteen years The annual budget of PIN in 2005 was 109 million EURO ($ 137 million) (King Exnerova Blazek eds 2006)

PIN began in 1992 when dissidents and leaders of the Czechoslovak Velvet Revolution teamed with conflict journalists working for the Czech Public Service Television They aimed to provide humanitarian aid to the civil war torn region of Nagorno-Karabakh (former USSR) Since then the activities of the organization have proliferated Although the organization works in fourteen countries in Asia Europe and Africa the main focus of its work has remained in the countries of the former Soviet Union or the former Soviet bloc The organization has been primarily involved in Ukraine Moldova and Tajikistan Throughout the nineties it provided robust assistance during the humanitarian interventions in the war-torn countries of the former Yugoslavia and later during the reconstruction of these areas According to PINrsquos long-term plan the organization would like to further contribute to the reconstruction of the countries of the former Yugoslavia The cultural similarities between the Czech Republic and the region of the Balkan should facilitate such assistance

Caritas is another organization working in the field of foreign humanitarian and development assistance Because the main objective of the organization is provision of social services in the Czech Republic the magnitude of its foreign projects is limited In 2005 the resources allocated to the activities abroad reached $ 16 million which was approximately one tenth of PINrsquos budget (Caritas 2006) Throughout the nineties the organization worked in Chechnya Georgia Ukraine Moldova and the countries of the Balkan which have received priority throughout the 1990s and in the beginning of the 21st century

Both organizations started their activities in former USSR countries and in the Balkan prior to the intensification of governmental flows into these countries The projects were primarily funded by donations or through multilateral agencies Later on governmental funding played a substantial role It is reasonable to expect that this change has occurred due to pressure from these organizations The government might have been easily willing to accommodate the NGOs as their experience in the regions ensured the quality and sustainability of projects Multilateral Aid Czech multilateral ODA disbursements (Graph 5) have followed a similar pattern as total ODA (Graph 1 p10) Multilateral ODA remained rather constant between the years 2000 ndash 2003 Starting in 2004 a dramatic increase occurred I have attributed this growth to entry into the EU in section IV1 This explanation is further reinforced when looking at the specific recipients of multilateral aid The European Union is by far the largest recipient following the year of the countryrsquos accession into the Union The importance of other recipients is decreasing or remains constant as in the case of the UN

13

Graph 5 Czech Republic Multilateral ODA Disbursements

Czech Republic Multilateral ODA Disbursements

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Year

UnspecifiedEC

UN

V Preliminary Conclusion When relating the findings to the theoretical framework outlined in the introductory sections the following conclusions can be made First the case of the Czech Republic suggests that the onset of aid giving has primarily been driven by the international arena Intergovernmental and overseas governmental organizations provided the financial support necessary for capacity building They have also offered substantial transfer of foreign aid know-how Domestic actors such as political parties or non- governmental sector have not played a major role at this stage

Second evidence for the Czech Republic Hungary Poland and Slovakia reveals that the EU an international actor has played a major role in determining current ODA levels Significant growth of total ODA is evident only after the EU mandated and presented it as one of many conditions for EU accession The underlying influence of the EU also manifests itself in the multilateral aid disbursements of the Czech Republic where the vast majority of the funds go to the European Union budget

Third several trends show up when analyzing bilateral allocations For the Czech Republic Hungary Poland and Slovakia post-Yugoslavian nations have been primary recipients of foreign aid Pragmatism rather than altruism derived from recipient need is probably behind this pattern Geographical proximity cultural similarity and a shared experience of a communist past are factors potentially leading to effectiveness in aid allocations The case of the Czech Republic suggests that the non-governmental sector played a constitutive role in prioritizing former Yugoslavian countries

Starting mid-2000s the prioritizing of Afghanistan and Iraq in the Czech Hungarian and Slovak aid disbursements implies that the donors seek to strengthen their political coalition with Western powers Yet donor interest is combined with recipient need in the case of Afghanistan since the country is included on the list of least developed countries

Polish bilateral aid has also been strongly shaped by donor interest but one of a different nature As the country focuses on Kazakhstan natural resources endowed country with rapidly growing GNI economic interest is paramount

Lastly Slovak focus on Sudan in the last couple of years could represent a genuine altruistic response to recipient needs as Sudan belongs to the group of least developed countries (UN World Bank 2006) However it is too soon to conclude if allocations to Sudan form a long-term pattern or is they are merely isolated events without a solid institutional anchor

14

Overall donorsrsquo interest prevails over recipient need when analyzing bilateral allocations Yet different interests motivate the direction of bilateral disbursements Evidence suggests that political and economic motivations are the most frequent ones Recipient need is being reflected primarily when combined with donor interest Isolated instances of altruism occur sporadically

15

Appendix 1 Tables 1 ndash 4 Total Bilateral and Multilateral ODA

Donor Czech Republic Amount Constant Prices (2006 $ millions) Type of flow Net Disbursements Year 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Type of aid ODA 2769 2642 3173 4881 7004 11896 12419 14492 16086 15504 ODAGNI 003 003 003 005 007 011 011 011 012 011 Bilateral ODA 1006 1185 1249 2753 4832 10558 7288 6906 777 7377 Multilateral ODA 1763 1457 1924 2128 2173 1339 5131 7587 8316 8127

UN Agencies 1034 698 634 477 524 57 EC 3854 6619 6874 7167

Unspecified 1924 2128 1139 641 643 491 918 39

Donor Hungary Amount Constant Prices (2006 $ millions) Type of flow Net Disbursements Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Type of aid ODA 2501 716 9866 14949 7487 ODAGNI 003 007 011 014 007 Bilateral ODA 1637 3623 3889 8434 2813 Multilateral ODA 866 3536 5978 6515 4674

16

Donor Poland Amount Constant Prices (2006 $ millions) Type of flow Net Disbursements Year 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Type of aid ODA 2758 3208 4646 5226 2041 3693 14399 21656 29679 30628 ODAGNI 001 001 002 002 NA 001 005 007 009 009 Bilateral ODA 2012 2313 2104 4515 1273 2576 305 5072 11899 12426 Multilateral ODA 745 895 2541 711 769 1118 11349 16584 1778 18202

UN Agencies 966 398 EC 9376 1707

Unspecified 1007 16584 1778 734

Donor Slovak Republic Amount Constant Prices (2006 $ millions) Type of flow Net Disbursements Year 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Type of aid ODA 1445 1172 1648 1192 2084 3227 6032 5511 5546 ODAGNI 004 003 004 002 005 007 012 01 009 Bilateral ODA 805 342 675 664 1177 1229 3301 2475 2265 Multilateral ODA 64 83 973 528 905 1997 273 3036 3281

Appendix 2 Tables 1 ndash 4 Top 3 Recipients of Bilateral ODA Donor Czech Republic Amount Constant Prices (2006) $ million Type of flow ODA net disbursements

Year Country $ million 1998 1 Palestinian-Administered Territory 166

2 Vietnam 070 3 Bosnia-Herzegovina 053 Former Yugoslavia (total) 102

1999 1 Palestinian-Administered Territory 150

2 China 066 3 Bosnia-Herzegovina 055 Former Yugoslavia (total) 139

2000 1 Palestinian-Administered Territory 169 2 Mongolia 094 3 Bosnia-Herzegovina 092 Former Yugoslavia (total) 145

2001 1 Serbia 518 2 Vietnam 177 3 India 197 4 Moldova 171 Former Yugoslavia (total) 829

2002 1 Former Yugoslavia (total) 1100 2 India 221 3 Georgia 153 Former Yugoslavia (total) 1290

2003 1 Iraq 5250 2 Afghanistan 804 3 Serbia amp Montenegro 545 Former Yugoslavia (total) 1440

2004 1 Iraq 1568 2 Serbia amp Montenegro 790 3 Afghanistan 698 Former Yugoslavia (total) 1090

2005 1 Iraq 872 2 Serbia amp Montenegro 689 3 Ukraine 495 Former Yugoslavia (total) 1050

18

18

Donor Czech Republic Amount Constant Prices (2006) $ million Type of flow ODA net disbursements

Year Country $ million 2006 1 Iraq 118

2 Serbia 6 3 Afghanistan 42 Former Yugoslavia (total) 106

Donor Hungary Amount Constant Prices (2006) $ million Type of flow ODA net disbursements

Year Country $ million 2003 1 Serbia 305

2 Vietnam 052 3 Croatia 054 Former Yugoslavia (total) 55

2004 1 Bosnia-Herzegovina 1920 2 Serbia 332 3 Iraq 181 4 Afghanistan 166 Former Yugoslavia (total) 2314

2005 1 Serbia 1012 2 Yemen 986 3 Tanzania 941 Former Yugoslavia (total) 1023

2006 1 Iraq 6715 2 Afghanistan 039 3 Vietnam 031

Former Yugoslavia (total) 059

Donor Poland Amount Constant Prices (2006) $ million Type of flow ODA net disbursements

Year Country $ million 1998 1 Bosnia-Herzegovina 373

2 Vietnam 326 3 Kazakhstan 214 Former Yugoslavia (total) 419

19

19

Donor Poland Amount Constant Prices (2006) $ million Type of flow ODA net disbursements

Year Country $ million 1999 1 Bosnia-Herzegovina 355

2 Macedonia 282 3 Kazakhstan 234 Former Yugoslavia (total) 897

2000 1 Argentina 519 2 Kazakhstan 316 3 Vietnam 164 Former Yugoslavia (total) 174

2001 1 Yemen 347 2 Kazakhstan 256 3 Vietnam 232 Former Yugoslavia (total) 114

2002 1 China 528 2 Kazakhstan 24 3 Vietnam 044 Former Yugoslavia (total) 092

2003 1 Serbia 152 2 Kazakhstan 24 3 China 202 Former Yugoslavia (total) 157

2004 1 Ethiopia 107 2 Serbia 997 3 China 19 4 Kazakhstan 162 Former Yugoslavia (total) 104

2005 1 Serbia 198 2 Ukraine 651 3 Uzbekistan 63 Former Yugoslavia (total) 204

2006 1 Angola 924 2 Ukraine 651 3 Belarus 677 Former Yugoslavia (total) 175

20

20

Donor Slovak Republic Amount Constant Prices (2006) $ million Type of flow ODA net disbursements

Year $ million 2002 1 Former Yugoslavia (total) 083

2 Sudan 018 3 Kenya 016

2003 1 Former Yugoslavia (total) 307 2 Iraq 113 3 Kenya 039

2004 1 Former Yugoslavia (total) 364 2 Hong Kong China 158 3 Georgia 054 4 Afghanistan 043

2005 1 Sudan 1857 2 Afghanistan 474 3 Former Yugoslavia (total) 408

2006 1 Sudan 1498 2 Afghanistan 154 3 Mongolia 064

21

21

Reference Alesina A amp Dollar D (2000) Who Gives Foreign Aid to Whom and Why Journal of

Economic Growth 5 33-63 Bearce D H amp Tirone D C (2007) Foreign Aid Recipient Growth and the Strategic Goals

of Donor Governments manuscript for APSA 2007 Bertheacutelemy J-C amp Tichit A (2004) Bilateral donors aid allocations decisions - a three-

dimensional panel analysis International Review of Economics and Finance Caritas (2006) Vyrocni zprava 2005 Praha Ceska katolicka charita CEC (2006) Communication for the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament

Financing for Development and Aid Effectiveness ndash The challenges of scaling up EU aid 2006 ndash 2008

Granell F (2005) Can the Fifth Enlargement Weaken the EUs Development Cooperation Jean MonnetRobert Schuman Paper Series 5(24 August)

Isenman P (1976) Biases in Aid Allocations Against Poorer and Larger Countries World Development 44 631-641 King M Exnerova V Blazek O Eds (2006) Annual Report 2005 Prague People In Need

Lancaster C (2007) Foreign Aid Chicago and London The University of Chicago Press Maizels A amp Nissanke M K (1984) Motivations for Aid to Developing Countries World

Development 12(9) 870-900 Malkin B amp agencies (2006) Poland to Send More Troops to Afghanistan Guardian

Unlimited September 14 Retrieved 2202008 from wwwguardiancoukafghanistanstory0187212500html

McKinlay R D amp Little R (1977) A Foreign Policy Model of US Bilateral Aid Allocations World Politics 30 58-86

McKinlay R D amp Little R (1978i) The French Aid Relationship A Foreign Policy Model of the Disribution of French Bilateral Aid 1964-1970 Development and Change 9 459-478

McKinlay R D amp Little R (1978ii) A Foreign-Policy Model of the Distribution of British Billateral Aid1960-1970 British Journal of Political Science 8 313-331

McKinlay R D amp Little R (1978iii) The German Aid Relationship A Test of the Recipient Need and the Donor Interest 1960-1970 European Journal of Political Research 6 235-257

McKinlay R D amp Little R (1979) The US Aid Relationship A Test of the Recipient Need and the Donor Interest Model Political Studies 27 236-250

McNamara S (2007) ldquoThe PolishndashAmerican Relationship Deepening and Strengthening the Alliancerdquo Backgrounder 2010 February 27 1-13

Migliorisi S (2003) The Consequences of Enlargement for Development Policy (a report for European Commission)

Moravcsik A amp Vaduchova A M (2003) National Interest State Power and EU Enlargement East European Politics and Societies 17(1) 42-57

Morgenthau H (1962) A Political Theory of Foreign Aid The American Political Science Review 56(2) 301-309

Neumayer E (2003) The Pattern of Aid Giving London and New York Routledge OECD (2008) Glossary of Statistical Terms Retrieved 5282008 from

httpstatsoecdorgglossarydetailaspID=1176 OECD (2008) Development Cooperation Report 2007 (Summary) OECD-DAC (2007) DACs Glossary Retrieved 2202008 from

Schraeder P J Hook S W amp Taylor B (1998) ldquoClarifying the Foreign Aid Puzzle A

httpwwwoecdorgglossary02586en_2649_33721_1965693_1_1_1_100html1965586

22

22

Comparison of American Japanese French and Swedish Aid Flowsrdquo World Politics 50(2) 294-323

Snyder J (2004) One World Rival Theories Foreign Policy (NovDec) 52-62 Theacuterien J-P amp Noeumll A (2000) ldquoPolitical Parties and Foreign Aidrdquo American Political Science

Review 94 (March)(1) 151-162 UNDP (2008) The Human Development Report 20072008 Technical Note UN World Bank (2006) Measuring Progress in Least Developed Countries a statistical profile Waltz K (1979) Theory of International Politics New York Random House

  • R Schuman
    • Vol 5 No 19
    • December 2008
      • Introduction
      • This research aims to contribute to understanding why countries give foreign aid It focuses on the new donors of Central-Eastern Europe (the Czech Republic Hungary Poland and Slovakia) and the Baltic states (Estonia Latvia Lithuania) These cou

6

efforts to push more national governments to provide more aid In this environment aid giving has become an international standard for governments in rich countries (Lancaster 2006 p 5) This hypothesis presents a dynamic deserving rigorous testing in the case of emerging donors as well given that most of these countries have undergone economic growth in the recent years This project is an attempt to test the hypothesis particularly in the Central European region III Official Development Assistance (ODA) Foreign aid refers to transfers among governments and between governments and international organizations It can be in the form of cash (grants or concessional loans) in kind (eg food aid) or in the form of debt relief The Development Assistance Committee (DAC) of the OECD uses the official development assistance (ODA) indicator to measure foreign aid flows (OECD 2008) ODA flows are divided into two basic categories multilateral aid (transfers from governments to international organizations) and bilateral aid (transfers from governments to governments)

The aim of ODA transfers is to contribute to economic development and welfare ODA does not include military expenditures subsidies to promote private investment funding for anti-terrorism or other law-enforcement programs bribes costs of representation or private charitable giving (OECD 2007) It is important to keep in mind that foreign aid differs from humanitarian aid which is typically provided in response to humanitarian crises The primary objective of humanitarian aid is to save lives whereas development aid focuses on improving socio-economic conditions ODA is typically measured in US dollars ($) or as a percentage of gross national income (GNI)2

2 The OECD defines GNI as GDP less primary incomes payable to non- resident units plus primary incomes receivable from non-resident units (OECD Glossary of Statistical Terms 2008)

The DAC collects data from OECD members and affiliates regarding ODA flows

Although CEE and Baltic countries are not yet DAC members they have adjusted their national statistics according to DAC methodology and they submit annual reports to the organization Comparable data for the Czech Republic Hungary Poland and the Slovak Republic is available starting in the mid-1990s through the OECD database

This paper aims to reveal trends in overall aid giving among emerging CEE and Baltic donors Absolute ODA and allocations relative to GNI are presented Further I focus on ratios between bilateral and multilateral aid in the case of the Czech Republic Hungary Poland and the Slovak Republic Top bilateral aid recipients for each of these donor countries will be identified Eventually I examine the onset stage in the case of the Czech Republic IV Findings IV1 Total Foreign Aid In all seven examined countries ODAGNI ratios have grown between the years 2001 ndash 2006 The most radical growth can be seen in the case of Hungary and Poland where the ODAGNI ratio grew five times during the course of five years

7

Table 1 ODAGNI ODAGNI ratio (in ) 2001 2006 Poland 002 01 Czech Republic 005 011 Slovak Republic 006 0085 Hungary 002 01 Lithuania 002 0064 Latvia 002 006 Estonia 001 006 Migliorisi Stephano (2003) The Consequences of Enlargement for Development Policy CEC (2006) Communication for the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament ldquoFinancing for Development and Aid Effectiveness ndash The challenges of scaling up EU aid 2006 ndash 2008rdquo

The DAC offers detailed ODA statistics for the Czech Republic Hungary Poland and

the Slovak Republic (Grafs 1-4 source data Appendix 1) The data reveal that total ODA spending grew only incrementally between the years 1998-2002 Substantial growth is traceable since 2003 I attribute this pattern to the process of enlargement in the European Union (EU)

The Czech Republic Hungary Poland and the Slovak Republic together with the three Baltic countries and Cyprus Malta and Slovenia joined the European Union in May of 2004 Prior to accession these countries had to harmonize their national laws and practices according to the European legislature Foreign aid was one of the numerous areas subject to negotiation between the acceding states and the European Commission The applicants agreed to join the EUrsquos development and humanitarian aid framework on the date of their accession EU membership gave the new members the possibility to take part in decision-making on the European level 3

Data indicate that ODAGNI continued to grow in the following years approaching the commitment levels made to the EU Increase in ODA disbursements under EU pressure was

However it has also brought new commitments The countries were asked to restructure their national foreign aid framework to increase development spending and to start paying contributions to the EUrsquos foreign aid budget (European Development Fund)

When examining ODAGNI levels the EU influence is evident In 2003 a year prior the EU accession ODA disbursements double in case of Slovakia and almost doubled in the case of the Czech Republic and Hungary Poland witnessed steep growth of the ODAGNI ratio in the following year

As a new EU member the Czech Republic Hungary Poland and Slovakia took part in the European Council negotiations of 2005 Together with other 20 EU members the countries made a commitment to strive for a goal of 056 of ODAGNI per year However more specific and realistic commitments based on economic potential were negotiated on a country grouping basis Old members committed themselves to 05 of ODAGNI per year The ten new members set a goal of annual 017 of ODAGNI

3 Detailed discussion of the harmonization process and its possible implications for the EU can be found in Granell F (2005)

8

Graphs 1- 4 Bilateral vs Multilateral ODA

Czech Republic Bilateral vs Multilateral ODA

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Year

Multilateral ODA

Bilateral ODA

Slovak Republic Bilateral vs Multilateral ODA

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Year

Multilateral ODABilateral ODA

Poland Bilateral vs Multilateral ODA

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Year

Multilateral ODABilateral ODA

Hungary Bilateral vs Multilateral ODA

0

2040

60

80

100120

140

160

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Year

Multilateral ODA

Bilateral ODA

9

probably opposed by some segments within the new membersrsquo governments Nevertheless membership in the EU was a long-term economic and geopolitical interest of the Thus sacrificing a small fraction of their GNI as foreign aid was a minor cost compared to the benefits of EU membership

However experience from previous waves of enlargement shows that the logic of long-term benefits is oftentimes forgotten once applicants are in the Union 4

Another noticeable trend is that Iraq and Afghanistan have become major recipients of Czech foreign aid since in 2003 The two countries received almost 50 of total Czech bilateral aid in 2003 The flows have decreased since then but Iraq still obtains the most aid of all bilateral recipients Diplomatic purposes behind these disbursements are clear The Czech Republic entered into an alliance with the US and Western European powers after the end of the Cold War

Thus it is likely to expect that after accession new members would relax their commitment to EU membership pre-conditions This trend can be perhaps already witnessed in the case of the Czech Republic Hungary and Slovakia where ODAGNI ratio has decreased slightly in 2007 IV2 Bilateral Aid Are the bilateral allocations of the new donors driven by their interests or the recipients needs McKinlay and Little used these two independent variables to explain aid allocation for the first time in the 1970s (McKinlay Little 1977 1978iiiiii 1979) and they continue to be the most standardized variables today (eg Bearce Tirone 2007) Numerous studies have operationalized the variables in different ways Nevertheless most scholars have included political economic and cultural aspects within the donor interest variable (Neumayer 2003 p 19) I do the same in this research Further I operationalize recipient need based on identification with the group of Least Developed Countries This classification takes into account per capita income and combines it with quality of life indicators (UN World Bank 2006)

In the following section I discuss bilateral flows allocated by the Czech Hungarian Polish and Slovak governments OECD database does not include any data for disbursements from Estonia Latvia and Lithuania Czech Republic receives most attention in this section due to the availability of most detailed data and my most immediate experience with aid management in the country

In the Czech Republic bilateral aid was traditionally dispersed among many recipients in the period of 1998-2000 This dispersion happened mainly because ten ministries used to be responsible for project implementation (Migliorisi 2003) There were attempts to streamline the number of countries receiving aid by identifying eight long-term priority and two mid-term priority countries Yet the effort was not concentrated enough until the late-2000s For example the country carried out over 100 projects in about 35 countries in 2005

Starting in 2001 states of the former Yugoslavia have received more intensive attention According to the amount of total aid received Bosnia-Herzegovina Serbia and Moldova ranked among the top recipients (Appendix 2 Table 1) None of these countries belongs to the group of least developed countries thus the hypothesis of prioritizing based on recipient need can be rejected There are two possible alternative explanations for this choice of recipients First the former Yugoslavia is a region in Southern Europe thus geographical proximity is clearly an advantage when implementing the project Further Slavic populations prevail in all post-Yugoslavian countries The linguistic familiarity can additionally facilitate project management and effectiveness A second alternative explanation suggests that the Czech Republic started to be deeply engaged in former Yugoslavian countries because of the pressure of Czech NGOs Section IV3 will further discuss these hypotheses

4 Expansion of this idea can be found for example in Moravcsik A amp Vaduchova A M (2003) ldquoNational Interest State Power and EU Enlargementrdquo East European Politics and Societies 17(1) 42-57

10

Providing resources for operations conducted by its allies is a most efficient symbol of political support However in the case of Afghanistan altruistic motivations are also present since the country belongs to the group of least developed countries (UN World Bank 2006)

Hungary displays similar yet less distinct patterns than the Czech Republic (Appendix 2 Table 2) Former Yugoslavian countries remain the primary recipients of Hungarian bilateral ODA However Hungary provided a large proportion of its foreign aid to in 2004 and 2006 This timing parallels the military operations of Hungaryrsquos allies in these two countries In 2005 allocations to both Afghanistan and Iraq were only marginal ($ 007 and $ 038 million respectively) and this represents a deviation deserving further qualitative exploration The Polish case displays similar patterns in some regards yet it substantially differs in others The former Yugoslavia has been the highest recipient of Polish between the years 1998 ndash 2006 Nevertheless Polandrsquos disbursements to Iraq and Afghanistan have been rather negligible (Appendix 2 Table 3) This is a rather surprising trend Out of the seven examined countries Poland has traditionally been the closest ally to the US In 2005 President George W Bush asserted that Poland has been a fantastic ally (White House in McNamara 2007 p1) Poland is one of the four leading countries in the coalition for the War on Terror alongside Australia Britain and the US The Polish government initially sent 900 troops to Iraq In 2006 it committed an additional 900 troops to fight the insurgency in Afghanistan (Malkin and agencies 2006) Thus it would be reasonable to expect that US ndash Polish alliance would be reflected in the Polish preferences for top aid recipients However the evidence shows the opposite Iraq and Afghanistan received in 2006 only $047 million and $055 million respectively which refutes the hypothesis of political alliance between the US and Poland influencing aid disbursements Furthermore Poland shows a consistent commitment to Kazakhstan a former Soviet Republic With an annual PPP GDP of $ 10400 and 73 growth rate (CIA Fact sheet) Kazakhstan does not belong to the group of least developed countries Thus I refute altruistic explanation for this commitment On the contrary I hypothesize that this commitment is related to the fact that Kazakhstan possesses enormous fossil fuel reserves and plentiful supplies of other minerals and metals which could be potentially beneficial to the Polish economy In 2005 and 2006 Poland allocated relatively substantial sums to Belarus Ukraine and Uzbekistan three other post-Soviet countries It is too early to state whether these allocations represent a major trend However a potential explanation for these allocations could be a mix of economic considerations (especially in the case of Uzbekistan) connected with geographical proximity and cultural similarity For Slovakia as is the case with the other three new donors the primary focus has been the former Yugoslavia Afghanistan established itself as one of the major recipients of Slovak aid between 2004 and 2006 A combination of donor political interests and recipient need is probably reflected in this trend Afghanistan has been a major target for Western intervention and at the same time it belongs to the group of least developed countries Sudan has been a recipient of Slovak aid between the years of 2002 and 2006 which comprises the entire period of recorded Slovak bilateral disbursements In 2005 and 2006 Sudan became the biggest recipient of Slovak aid substantially ahead of other recipients Slovakia does not have any political nor economic interests in Sudan Sudan is a longstanding member of the least developed countries group thus it is of great need of foreign assistance Slovaks allocations seem to be responding to this need

In conclusion all four examined countries display a clear common pattern in their focus on the states from the former Yugoslavia which is probably motivated by geographical and cultural proximity While the Czech Republic Hungary and Slovakia strengthen their political alliance with Western powers thorough generous allocations to Afghanistan and Iraq Poland focuses on Kazakhstan a resourceful country once a part of the Soviet block Slovak allocations to Sudan seem to indicate altruistic motivations

11

IV3 Czech Republic Case Study Capacity Building What were the forces that shaped the onset stage of aid giving Has the institutional framework of the new economic policy towards developing countries developed as a result of domestic or international incentives

In 1995 the Czech Republic became a member of the OECD which fosters cooperation among developed democracies Within the organization the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) aims at improving governmental policies towards developing countries The Czech Republic obtained the status of an observer in 1996 which allowed it to participate in DAC activities without partaking in any negotiations

The DAC introduced Czech public sector administrators to its methods of collecting information on foreign aid flows in the second part of the 1990s Since then the country has adopted the concept of official development assistance as the principal unit for measuring its foreign aid disbursements Data based on the OECD methodology are available for the first time for the year 1999 Czech ODA in this year was $ 2642 million or 0027 of the GNI

In 1999 the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) launched a series of projects which aimed to create national capacities for international development cooperation Several administrators were trained in order to understand foreign aid concepts and managerial tools Further Czech administrators were able to visit developing countries and learn about the needs of potential aid recipients The UNDP financed the founding of the Development Center The Center was created outside of governmental structures at a research institute for international relations The main objective of the Center has been to carry out consultative services to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs which forms governmental strategies for foreign aid In doing so the Center has helped with the design of national policy for cooperation with developing countries The UNDP ceased capacity-building activities in 2004 just as the Czech government was about to enter the European Union The total of contributions from the UNDP towards Czech capacity-building has reached over USD 1 million over the course of five years The Czech government complemented the UNDP budget with an additional USD 012 million

In 2002 the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) which has a strong international reputation as a foreign aid agency launched a program for strengthening ODA delivery agencies in the Czech Republic Hungary Poland and Slovakia This five-year long project aimed to spend USD 15 million in order to increase the amount and quality of assistance given by new donors to developing countries The project has been divided into two phases The focus in the first phase was institutional support and capacity building The second phase was centered on trilateral cooperation when the CIDA and a new donor conduct projects in developing countries together The first phase in which the Czech Republic received training and technical assistance finished in 2004 when the CIDA declared the Czech institutional capacities as sufficient The second phase of trilateral cooperation finished in 2007 In 2008 the Development Center became a Development Agency fully comparable to those of OECDDAC members

The impact of CIDArsquos assistance on capacity building has been smaller than the UNDPrsquos impact Most of the resources allocated for the Czech Republic were further used for projects in developing countries However the collaboration of Czech administrators with their Canadian counterparts in project management led to significant know-how transfers for the Czech specialists

The aforementioned evidence shows that the initial setup for foreign aid management in the Czech Republic was heavily shaped by international institutions The OECD through the DAC provided expertise in policy design and introduced basic concepts used for aid processing The UNDP and CIDA financed national capacity building These organizations trained Czech

12

administrators to become experts in foreign aid and also were the force behind the origin of new institutional capacities which are now concentrated in the Czech Development Agency and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Bilateral Aid I have identified the states from the former Yugoslavia as the biggest recipients of Czech ODA In this section I claim that the Czech government has consistently been engaged in these countries because of pressure from domestic NGOrsquos

People in Need (PIN) is by far the largest non-governmental organization providing relief aid and development assistance in the Czech Republic It is one of the largest organizations of its kind in post-communist Europe and has administered projects in thirty-seven countries over the past fourteen years The annual budget of PIN in 2005 was 109 million EURO ($ 137 million) (King Exnerova Blazek eds 2006)

PIN began in 1992 when dissidents and leaders of the Czechoslovak Velvet Revolution teamed with conflict journalists working for the Czech Public Service Television They aimed to provide humanitarian aid to the civil war torn region of Nagorno-Karabakh (former USSR) Since then the activities of the organization have proliferated Although the organization works in fourteen countries in Asia Europe and Africa the main focus of its work has remained in the countries of the former Soviet Union or the former Soviet bloc The organization has been primarily involved in Ukraine Moldova and Tajikistan Throughout the nineties it provided robust assistance during the humanitarian interventions in the war-torn countries of the former Yugoslavia and later during the reconstruction of these areas According to PINrsquos long-term plan the organization would like to further contribute to the reconstruction of the countries of the former Yugoslavia The cultural similarities between the Czech Republic and the region of the Balkan should facilitate such assistance

Caritas is another organization working in the field of foreign humanitarian and development assistance Because the main objective of the organization is provision of social services in the Czech Republic the magnitude of its foreign projects is limited In 2005 the resources allocated to the activities abroad reached $ 16 million which was approximately one tenth of PINrsquos budget (Caritas 2006) Throughout the nineties the organization worked in Chechnya Georgia Ukraine Moldova and the countries of the Balkan which have received priority throughout the 1990s and in the beginning of the 21st century

Both organizations started their activities in former USSR countries and in the Balkan prior to the intensification of governmental flows into these countries The projects were primarily funded by donations or through multilateral agencies Later on governmental funding played a substantial role It is reasonable to expect that this change has occurred due to pressure from these organizations The government might have been easily willing to accommodate the NGOs as their experience in the regions ensured the quality and sustainability of projects Multilateral Aid Czech multilateral ODA disbursements (Graph 5) have followed a similar pattern as total ODA (Graph 1 p10) Multilateral ODA remained rather constant between the years 2000 ndash 2003 Starting in 2004 a dramatic increase occurred I have attributed this growth to entry into the EU in section IV1 This explanation is further reinforced when looking at the specific recipients of multilateral aid The European Union is by far the largest recipient following the year of the countryrsquos accession into the Union The importance of other recipients is decreasing or remains constant as in the case of the UN

13

Graph 5 Czech Republic Multilateral ODA Disbursements

Czech Republic Multilateral ODA Disbursements

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Year

UnspecifiedEC

UN

V Preliminary Conclusion When relating the findings to the theoretical framework outlined in the introductory sections the following conclusions can be made First the case of the Czech Republic suggests that the onset of aid giving has primarily been driven by the international arena Intergovernmental and overseas governmental organizations provided the financial support necessary for capacity building They have also offered substantial transfer of foreign aid know-how Domestic actors such as political parties or non- governmental sector have not played a major role at this stage

Second evidence for the Czech Republic Hungary Poland and Slovakia reveals that the EU an international actor has played a major role in determining current ODA levels Significant growth of total ODA is evident only after the EU mandated and presented it as one of many conditions for EU accession The underlying influence of the EU also manifests itself in the multilateral aid disbursements of the Czech Republic where the vast majority of the funds go to the European Union budget

Third several trends show up when analyzing bilateral allocations For the Czech Republic Hungary Poland and Slovakia post-Yugoslavian nations have been primary recipients of foreign aid Pragmatism rather than altruism derived from recipient need is probably behind this pattern Geographical proximity cultural similarity and a shared experience of a communist past are factors potentially leading to effectiveness in aid allocations The case of the Czech Republic suggests that the non-governmental sector played a constitutive role in prioritizing former Yugoslavian countries

Starting mid-2000s the prioritizing of Afghanistan and Iraq in the Czech Hungarian and Slovak aid disbursements implies that the donors seek to strengthen their political coalition with Western powers Yet donor interest is combined with recipient need in the case of Afghanistan since the country is included on the list of least developed countries

Polish bilateral aid has also been strongly shaped by donor interest but one of a different nature As the country focuses on Kazakhstan natural resources endowed country with rapidly growing GNI economic interest is paramount

Lastly Slovak focus on Sudan in the last couple of years could represent a genuine altruistic response to recipient needs as Sudan belongs to the group of least developed countries (UN World Bank 2006) However it is too soon to conclude if allocations to Sudan form a long-term pattern or is they are merely isolated events without a solid institutional anchor

14

Overall donorsrsquo interest prevails over recipient need when analyzing bilateral allocations Yet different interests motivate the direction of bilateral disbursements Evidence suggests that political and economic motivations are the most frequent ones Recipient need is being reflected primarily when combined with donor interest Isolated instances of altruism occur sporadically

15

Appendix 1 Tables 1 ndash 4 Total Bilateral and Multilateral ODA

Donor Czech Republic Amount Constant Prices (2006 $ millions) Type of flow Net Disbursements Year 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Type of aid ODA 2769 2642 3173 4881 7004 11896 12419 14492 16086 15504 ODAGNI 003 003 003 005 007 011 011 011 012 011 Bilateral ODA 1006 1185 1249 2753 4832 10558 7288 6906 777 7377 Multilateral ODA 1763 1457 1924 2128 2173 1339 5131 7587 8316 8127

UN Agencies 1034 698 634 477 524 57 EC 3854 6619 6874 7167

Unspecified 1924 2128 1139 641 643 491 918 39

Donor Hungary Amount Constant Prices (2006 $ millions) Type of flow Net Disbursements Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Type of aid ODA 2501 716 9866 14949 7487 ODAGNI 003 007 011 014 007 Bilateral ODA 1637 3623 3889 8434 2813 Multilateral ODA 866 3536 5978 6515 4674

16

Donor Poland Amount Constant Prices (2006 $ millions) Type of flow Net Disbursements Year 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Type of aid ODA 2758 3208 4646 5226 2041 3693 14399 21656 29679 30628 ODAGNI 001 001 002 002 NA 001 005 007 009 009 Bilateral ODA 2012 2313 2104 4515 1273 2576 305 5072 11899 12426 Multilateral ODA 745 895 2541 711 769 1118 11349 16584 1778 18202

UN Agencies 966 398 EC 9376 1707

Unspecified 1007 16584 1778 734

Donor Slovak Republic Amount Constant Prices (2006 $ millions) Type of flow Net Disbursements Year 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Type of aid ODA 1445 1172 1648 1192 2084 3227 6032 5511 5546 ODAGNI 004 003 004 002 005 007 012 01 009 Bilateral ODA 805 342 675 664 1177 1229 3301 2475 2265 Multilateral ODA 64 83 973 528 905 1997 273 3036 3281

Appendix 2 Tables 1 ndash 4 Top 3 Recipients of Bilateral ODA Donor Czech Republic Amount Constant Prices (2006) $ million Type of flow ODA net disbursements

Year Country $ million 1998 1 Palestinian-Administered Territory 166

2 Vietnam 070 3 Bosnia-Herzegovina 053 Former Yugoslavia (total) 102

1999 1 Palestinian-Administered Territory 150

2 China 066 3 Bosnia-Herzegovina 055 Former Yugoslavia (total) 139

2000 1 Palestinian-Administered Territory 169 2 Mongolia 094 3 Bosnia-Herzegovina 092 Former Yugoslavia (total) 145

2001 1 Serbia 518 2 Vietnam 177 3 India 197 4 Moldova 171 Former Yugoslavia (total) 829

2002 1 Former Yugoslavia (total) 1100 2 India 221 3 Georgia 153 Former Yugoslavia (total) 1290

2003 1 Iraq 5250 2 Afghanistan 804 3 Serbia amp Montenegro 545 Former Yugoslavia (total) 1440

2004 1 Iraq 1568 2 Serbia amp Montenegro 790 3 Afghanistan 698 Former Yugoslavia (total) 1090

2005 1 Iraq 872 2 Serbia amp Montenegro 689 3 Ukraine 495 Former Yugoslavia (total) 1050

18

18

Donor Czech Republic Amount Constant Prices (2006) $ million Type of flow ODA net disbursements

Year Country $ million 2006 1 Iraq 118

2 Serbia 6 3 Afghanistan 42 Former Yugoslavia (total) 106

Donor Hungary Amount Constant Prices (2006) $ million Type of flow ODA net disbursements

Year Country $ million 2003 1 Serbia 305

2 Vietnam 052 3 Croatia 054 Former Yugoslavia (total) 55

2004 1 Bosnia-Herzegovina 1920 2 Serbia 332 3 Iraq 181 4 Afghanistan 166 Former Yugoslavia (total) 2314

2005 1 Serbia 1012 2 Yemen 986 3 Tanzania 941 Former Yugoslavia (total) 1023

2006 1 Iraq 6715 2 Afghanistan 039 3 Vietnam 031

Former Yugoslavia (total) 059

Donor Poland Amount Constant Prices (2006) $ million Type of flow ODA net disbursements

Year Country $ million 1998 1 Bosnia-Herzegovina 373

2 Vietnam 326 3 Kazakhstan 214 Former Yugoslavia (total) 419

19

19

Donor Poland Amount Constant Prices (2006) $ million Type of flow ODA net disbursements

Year Country $ million 1999 1 Bosnia-Herzegovina 355

2 Macedonia 282 3 Kazakhstan 234 Former Yugoslavia (total) 897

2000 1 Argentina 519 2 Kazakhstan 316 3 Vietnam 164 Former Yugoslavia (total) 174

2001 1 Yemen 347 2 Kazakhstan 256 3 Vietnam 232 Former Yugoslavia (total) 114

2002 1 China 528 2 Kazakhstan 24 3 Vietnam 044 Former Yugoslavia (total) 092

2003 1 Serbia 152 2 Kazakhstan 24 3 China 202 Former Yugoslavia (total) 157

2004 1 Ethiopia 107 2 Serbia 997 3 China 19 4 Kazakhstan 162 Former Yugoslavia (total) 104

2005 1 Serbia 198 2 Ukraine 651 3 Uzbekistan 63 Former Yugoslavia (total) 204

2006 1 Angola 924 2 Ukraine 651 3 Belarus 677 Former Yugoslavia (total) 175

20

20

Donor Slovak Republic Amount Constant Prices (2006) $ million Type of flow ODA net disbursements

Year $ million 2002 1 Former Yugoslavia (total) 083

2 Sudan 018 3 Kenya 016

2003 1 Former Yugoslavia (total) 307 2 Iraq 113 3 Kenya 039

2004 1 Former Yugoslavia (total) 364 2 Hong Kong China 158 3 Georgia 054 4 Afghanistan 043

2005 1 Sudan 1857 2 Afghanistan 474 3 Former Yugoslavia (total) 408

2006 1 Sudan 1498 2 Afghanistan 154 3 Mongolia 064

21

21

Reference Alesina A amp Dollar D (2000) Who Gives Foreign Aid to Whom and Why Journal of

Economic Growth 5 33-63 Bearce D H amp Tirone D C (2007) Foreign Aid Recipient Growth and the Strategic Goals

of Donor Governments manuscript for APSA 2007 Bertheacutelemy J-C amp Tichit A (2004) Bilateral donors aid allocations decisions - a three-

dimensional panel analysis International Review of Economics and Finance Caritas (2006) Vyrocni zprava 2005 Praha Ceska katolicka charita CEC (2006) Communication for the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament

Financing for Development and Aid Effectiveness ndash The challenges of scaling up EU aid 2006 ndash 2008

Granell F (2005) Can the Fifth Enlargement Weaken the EUs Development Cooperation Jean MonnetRobert Schuman Paper Series 5(24 August)

Isenman P (1976) Biases in Aid Allocations Against Poorer and Larger Countries World Development 44 631-641 King M Exnerova V Blazek O Eds (2006) Annual Report 2005 Prague People In Need

Lancaster C (2007) Foreign Aid Chicago and London The University of Chicago Press Maizels A amp Nissanke M K (1984) Motivations for Aid to Developing Countries World

Development 12(9) 870-900 Malkin B amp agencies (2006) Poland to Send More Troops to Afghanistan Guardian

Unlimited September 14 Retrieved 2202008 from wwwguardiancoukafghanistanstory0187212500html

McKinlay R D amp Little R (1977) A Foreign Policy Model of US Bilateral Aid Allocations World Politics 30 58-86

McKinlay R D amp Little R (1978i) The French Aid Relationship A Foreign Policy Model of the Disribution of French Bilateral Aid 1964-1970 Development and Change 9 459-478

McKinlay R D amp Little R (1978ii) A Foreign-Policy Model of the Distribution of British Billateral Aid1960-1970 British Journal of Political Science 8 313-331

McKinlay R D amp Little R (1978iii) The German Aid Relationship A Test of the Recipient Need and the Donor Interest 1960-1970 European Journal of Political Research 6 235-257

McKinlay R D amp Little R (1979) The US Aid Relationship A Test of the Recipient Need and the Donor Interest Model Political Studies 27 236-250

McNamara S (2007) ldquoThe PolishndashAmerican Relationship Deepening and Strengthening the Alliancerdquo Backgrounder 2010 February 27 1-13

Migliorisi S (2003) The Consequences of Enlargement for Development Policy (a report for European Commission)

Moravcsik A amp Vaduchova A M (2003) National Interest State Power and EU Enlargement East European Politics and Societies 17(1) 42-57

Morgenthau H (1962) A Political Theory of Foreign Aid The American Political Science Review 56(2) 301-309

Neumayer E (2003) The Pattern of Aid Giving London and New York Routledge OECD (2008) Glossary of Statistical Terms Retrieved 5282008 from

httpstatsoecdorgglossarydetailaspID=1176 OECD (2008) Development Cooperation Report 2007 (Summary) OECD-DAC (2007) DACs Glossary Retrieved 2202008 from

Schraeder P J Hook S W amp Taylor B (1998) ldquoClarifying the Foreign Aid Puzzle A

httpwwwoecdorgglossary02586en_2649_33721_1965693_1_1_1_100html1965586

22

22

Comparison of American Japanese French and Swedish Aid Flowsrdquo World Politics 50(2) 294-323

Snyder J (2004) One World Rival Theories Foreign Policy (NovDec) 52-62 Theacuterien J-P amp Noeumll A (2000) ldquoPolitical Parties and Foreign Aidrdquo American Political Science

Review 94 (March)(1) 151-162 UNDP (2008) The Human Development Report 20072008 Technical Note UN World Bank (2006) Measuring Progress in Least Developed Countries a statistical profile Waltz K (1979) Theory of International Politics New York Random House

  • R Schuman
    • Vol 5 No 19
    • December 2008
      • Introduction
      • This research aims to contribute to understanding why countries give foreign aid It focuses on the new donors of Central-Eastern Europe (the Czech Republic Hungary Poland and Slovakia) and the Baltic states (Estonia Latvia Lithuania) These cou

7

Table 1 ODAGNI ODAGNI ratio (in ) 2001 2006 Poland 002 01 Czech Republic 005 011 Slovak Republic 006 0085 Hungary 002 01 Lithuania 002 0064 Latvia 002 006 Estonia 001 006 Migliorisi Stephano (2003) The Consequences of Enlargement for Development Policy CEC (2006) Communication for the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament ldquoFinancing for Development and Aid Effectiveness ndash The challenges of scaling up EU aid 2006 ndash 2008rdquo

The DAC offers detailed ODA statistics for the Czech Republic Hungary Poland and

the Slovak Republic (Grafs 1-4 source data Appendix 1) The data reveal that total ODA spending grew only incrementally between the years 1998-2002 Substantial growth is traceable since 2003 I attribute this pattern to the process of enlargement in the European Union (EU)

The Czech Republic Hungary Poland and the Slovak Republic together with the three Baltic countries and Cyprus Malta and Slovenia joined the European Union in May of 2004 Prior to accession these countries had to harmonize their national laws and practices according to the European legislature Foreign aid was one of the numerous areas subject to negotiation between the acceding states and the European Commission The applicants agreed to join the EUrsquos development and humanitarian aid framework on the date of their accession EU membership gave the new members the possibility to take part in decision-making on the European level 3

Data indicate that ODAGNI continued to grow in the following years approaching the commitment levels made to the EU Increase in ODA disbursements under EU pressure was

However it has also brought new commitments The countries were asked to restructure their national foreign aid framework to increase development spending and to start paying contributions to the EUrsquos foreign aid budget (European Development Fund)

When examining ODAGNI levels the EU influence is evident In 2003 a year prior the EU accession ODA disbursements double in case of Slovakia and almost doubled in the case of the Czech Republic and Hungary Poland witnessed steep growth of the ODAGNI ratio in the following year

As a new EU member the Czech Republic Hungary Poland and Slovakia took part in the European Council negotiations of 2005 Together with other 20 EU members the countries made a commitment to strive for a goal of 056 of ODAGNI per year However more specific and realistic commitments based on economic potential were negotiated on a country grouping basis Old members committed themselves to 05 of ODAGNI per year The ten new members set a goal of annual 017 of ODAGNI

3 Detailed discussion of the harmonization process and its possible implications for the EU can be found in Granell F (2005)

8

Graphs 1- 4 Bilateral vs Multilateral ODA

Czech Republic Bilateral vs Multilateral ODA

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Year

Multilateral ODA

Bilateral ODA

Slovak Republic Bilateral vs Multilateral ODA

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Year

Multilateral ODABilateral ODA

Poland Bilateral vs Multilateral ODA

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Year

Multilateral ODABilateral ODA

Hungary Bilateral vs Multilateral ODA

0

2040

60

80

100120

140

160

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Year

Multilateral ODA

Bilateral ODA

9

probably opposed by some segments within the new membersrsquo governments Nevertheless membership in the EU was a long-term economic and geopolitical interest of the Thus sacrificing a small fraction of their GNI as foreign aid was a minor cost compared to the benefits of EU membership

However experience from previous waves of enlargement shows that the logic of long-term benefits is oftentimes forgotten once applicants are in the Union 4

Another noticeable trend is that Iraq and Afghanistan have become major recipients of Czech foreign aid since in 2003 The two countries received almost 50 of total Czech bilateral aid in 2003 The flows have decreased since then but Iraq still obtains the most aid of all bilateral recipients Diplomatic purposes behind these disbursements are clear The Czech Republic entered into an alliance with the US and Western European powers after the end of the Cold War

Thus it is likely to expect that after accession new members would relax their commitment to EU membership pre-conditions This trend can be perhaps already witnessed in the case of the Czech Republic Hungary and Slovakia where ODAGNI ratio has decreased slightly in 2007 IV2 Bilateral Aid Are the bilateral allocations of the new donors driven by their interests or the recipients needs McKinlay and Little used these two independent variables to explain aid allocation for the first time in the 1970s (McKinlay Little 1977 1978iiiiii 1979) and they continue to be the most standardized variables today (eg Bearce Tirone 2007) Numerous studies have operationalized the variables in different ways Nevertheless most scholars have included political economic and cultural aspects within the donor interest variable (Neumayer 2003 p 19) I do the same in this research Further I operationalize recipient need based on identification with the group of Least Developed Countries This classification takes into account per capita income and combines it with quality of life indicators (UN World Bank 2006)

In the following section I discuss bilateral flows allocated by the Czech Hungarian Polish and Slovak governments OECD database does not include any data for disbursements from Estonia Latvia and Lithuania Czech Republic receives most attention in this section due to the availability of most detailed data and my most immediate experience with aid management in the country

In the Czech Republic bilateral aid was traditionally dispersed among many recipients in the period of 1998-2000 This dispersion happened mainly because ten ministries used to be responsible for project implementation (Migliorisi 2003) There were attempts to streamline the number of countries receiving aid by identifying eight long-term priority and two mid-term priority countries Yet the effort was not concentrated enough until the late-2000s For example the country carried out over 100 projects in about 35 countries in 2005

Starting in 2001 states of the former Yugoslavia have received more intensive attention According to the amount of total aid received Bosnia-Herzegovina Serbia and Moldova ranked among the top recipients (Appendix 2 Table 1) None of these countries belongs to the group of least developed countries thus the hypothesis of prioritizing based on recipient need can be rejected There are two possible alternative explanations for this choice of recipients First the former Yugoslavia is a region in Southern Europe thus geographical proximity is clearly an advantage when implementing the project Further Slavic populations prevail in all post-Yugoslavian countries The linguistic familiarity can additionally facilitate project management and effectiveness A second alternative explanation suggests that the Czech Republic started to be deeply engaged in former Yugoslavian countries because of the pressure of Czech NGOs Section IV3 will further discuss these hypotheses

4 Expansion of this idea can be found for example in Moravcsik A amp Vaduchova A M (2003) ldquoNational Interest State Power and EU Enlargementrdquo East European Politics and Societies 17(1) 42-57

10

Providing resources for operations conducted by its allies is a most efficient symbol of political support However in the case of Afghanistan altruistic motivations are also present since the country belongs to the group of least developed countries (UN World Bank 2006)

Hungary displays similar yet less distinct patterns than the Czech Republic (Appendix 2 Table 2) Former Yugoslavian countries remain the primary recipients of Hungarian bilateral ODA However Hungary provided a large proportion of its foreign aid to in 2004 and 2006 This timing parallels the military operations of Hungaryrsquos allies in these two countries In 2005 allocations to both Afghanistan and Iraq were only marginal ($ 007 and $ 038 million respectively) and this represents a deviation deserving further qualitative exploration The Polish case displays similar patterns in some regards yet it substantially differs in others The former Yugoslavia has been the highest recipient of Polish between the years 1998 ndash 2006 Nevertheless Polandrsquos disbursements to Iraq and Afghanistan have been rather negligible (Appendix 2 Table 3) This is a rather surprising trend Out of the seven examined countries Poland has traditionally been the closest ally to the US In 2005 President George W Bush asserted that Poland has been a fantastic ally (White House in McNamara 2007 p1) Poland is one of the four leading countries in the coalition for the War on Terror alongside Australia Britain and the US The Polish government initially sent 900 troops to Iraq In 2006 it committed an additional 900 troops to fight the insurgency in Afghanistan (Malkin and agencies 2006) Thus it would be reasonable to expect that US ndash Polish alliance would be reflected in the Polish preferences for top aid recipients However the evidence shows the opposite Iraq and Afghanistan received in 2006 only $047 million and $055 million respectively which refutes the hypothesis of political alliance between the US and Poland influencing aid disbursements Furthermore Poland shows a consistent commitment to Kazakhstan a former Soviet Republic With an annual PPP GDP of $ 10400 and 73 growth rate (CIA Fact sheet) Kazakhstan does not belong to the group of least developed countries Thus I refute altruistic explanation for this commitment On the contrary I hypothesize that this commitment is related to the fact that Kazakhstan possesses enormous fossil fuel reserves and plentiful supplies of other minerals and metals which could be potentially beneficial to the Polish economy In 2005 and 2006 Poland allocated relatively substantial sums to Belarus Ukraine and Uzbekistan three other post-Soviet countries It is too early to state whether these allocations represent a major trend However a potential explanation for these allocations could be a mix of economic considerations (especially in the case of Uzbekistan) connected with geographical proximity and cultural similarity For Slovakia as is the case with the other three new donors the primary focus has been the former Yugoslavia Afghanistan established itself as one of the major recipients of Slovak aid between 2004 and 2006 A combination of donor political interests and recipient need is probably reflected in this trend Afghanistan has been a major target for Western intervention and at the same time it belongs to the group of least developed countries Sudan has been a recipient of Slovak aid between the years of 2002 and 2006 which comprises the entire period of recorded Slovak bilateral disbursements In 2005 and 2006 Sudan became the biggest recipient of Slovak aid substantially ahead of other recipients Slovakia does not have any political nor economic interests in Sudan Sudan is a longstanding member of the least developed countries group thus it is of great need of foreign assistance Slovaks allocations seem to be responding to this need

In conclusion all four examined countries display a clear common pattern in their focus on the states from the former Yugoslavia which is probably motivated by geographical and cultural proximity While the Czech Republic Hungary and Slovakia strengthen their political alliance with Western powers thorough generous allocations to Afghanistan and Iraq Poland focuses on Kazakhstan a resourceful country once a part of the Soviet block Slovak allocations to Sudan seem to indicate altruistic motivations

11

IV3 Czech Republic Case Study Capacity Building What were the forces that shaped the onset stage of aid giving Has the institutional framework of the new economic policy towards developing countries developed as a result of domestic or international incentives

In 1995 the Czech Republic became a member of the OECD which fosters cooperation among developed democracies Within the organization the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) aims at improving governmental policies towards developing countries The Czech Republic obtained the status of an observer in 1996 which allowed it to participate in DAC activities without partaking in any negotiations

The DAC introduced Czech public sector administrators to its methods of collecting information on foreign aid flows in the second part of the 1990s Since then the country has adopted the concept of official development assistance as the principal unit for measuring its foreign aid disbursements Data based on the OECD methodology are available for the first time for the year 1999 Czech ODA in this year was $ 2642 million or 0027 of the GNI

In 1999 the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) launched a series of projects which aimed to create national capacities for international development cooperation Several administrators were trained in order to understand foreign aid concepts and managerial tools Further Czech administrators were able to visit developing countries and learn about the needs of potential aid recipients The UNDP financed the founding of the Development Center The Center was created outside of governmental structures at a research institute for international relations The main objective of the Center has been to carry out consultative services to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs which forms governmental strategies for foreign aid In doing so the Center has helped with the design of national policy for cooperation with developing countries The UNDP ceased capacity-building activities in 2004 just as the Czech government was about to enter the European Union The total of contributions from the UNDP towards Czech capacity-building has reached over USD 1 million over the course of five years The Czech government complemented the UNDP budget with an additional USD 012 million

In 2002 the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) which has a strong international reputation as a foreign aid agency launched a program for strengthening ODA delivery agencies in the Czech Republic Hungary Poland and Slovakia This five-year long project aimed to spend USD 15 million in order to increase the amount and quality of assistance given by new donors to developing countries The project has been divided into two phases The focus in the first phase was institutional support and capacity building The second phase was centered on trilateral cooperation when the CIDA and a new donor conduct projects in developing countries together The first phase in which the Czech Republic received training and technical assistance finished in 2004 when the CIDA declared the Czech institutional capacities as sufficient The second phase of trilateral cooperation finished in 2007 In 2008 the Development Center became a Development Agency fully comparable to those of OECDDAC members

The impact of CIDArsquos assistance on capacity building has been smaller than the UNDPrsquos impact Most of the resources allocated for the Czech Republic were further used for projects in developing countries However the collaboration of Czech administrators with their Canadian counterparts in project management led to significant know-how transfers for the Czech specialists

The aforementioned evidence shows that the initial setup for foreign aid management in the Czech Republic was heavily shaped by international institutions The OECD through the DAC provided expertise in policy design and introduced basic concepts used for aid processing The UNDP and CIDA financed national capacity building These organizations trained Czech

12

administrators to become experts in foreign aid and also were the force behind the origin of new institutional capacities which are now concentrated in the Czech Development Agency and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Bilateral Aid I have identified the states from the former Yugoslavia as the biggest recipients of Czech ODA In this section I claim that the Czech government has consistently been engaged in these countries because of pressure from domestic NGOrsquos

People in Need (PIN) is by far the largest non-governmental organization providing relief aid and development assistance in the Czech Republic It is one of the largest organizations of its kind in post-communist Europe and has administered projects in thirty-seven countries over the past fourteen years The annual budget of PIN in 2005 was 109 million EURO ($ 137 million) (King Exnerova Blazek eds 2006)

PIN began in 1992 when dissidents and leaders of the Czechoslovak Velvet Revolution teamed with conflict journalists working for the Czech Public Service Television They aimed to provide humanitarian aid to the civil war torn region of Nagorno-Karabakh (former USSR) Since then the activities of the organization have proliferated Although the organization works in fourteen countries in Asia Europe and Africa the main focus of its work has remained in the countries of the former Soviet Union or the former Soviet bloc The organization has been primarily involved in Ukraine Moldova and Tajikistan Throughout the nineties it provided robust assistance during the humanitarian interventions in the war-torn countries of the former Yugoslavia and later during the reconstruction of these areas According to PINrsquos long-term plan the organization would like to further contribute to the reconstruction of the countries of the former Yugoslavia The cultural similarities between the Czech Republic and the region of the Balkan should facilitate such assistance

Caritas is another organization working in the field of foreign humanitarian and development assistance Because the main objective of the organization is provision of social services in the Czech Republic the magnitude of its foreign projects is limited In 2005 the resources allocated to the activities abroad reached $ 16 million which was approximately one tenth of PINrsquos budget (Caritas 2006) Throughout the nineties the organization worked in Chechnya Georgia Ukraine Moldova and the countries of the Balkan which have received priority throughout the 1990s and in the beginning of the 21st century

Both organizations started their activities in former USSR countries and in the Balkan prior to the intensification of governmental flows into these countries The projects were primarily funded by donations or through multilateral agencies Later on governmental funding played a substantial role It is reasonable to expect that this change has occurred due to pressure from these organizations The government might have been easily willing to accommodate the NGOs as their experience in the regions ensured the quality and sustainability of projects Multilateral Aid Czech multilateral ODA disbursements (Graph 5) have followed a similar pattern as total ODA (Graph 1 p10) Multilateral ODA remained rather constant between the years 2000 ndash 2003 Starting in 2004 a dramatic increase occurred I have attributed this growth to entry into the EU in section IV1 This explanation is further reinforced when looking at the specific recipients of multilateral aid The European Union is by far the largest recipient following the year of the countryrsquos accession into the Union The importance of other recipients is decreasing or remains constant as in the case of the UN

13

Graph 5 Czech Republic Multilateral ODA Disbursements

Czech Republic Multilateral ODA Disbursements

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Year

UnspecifiedEC

UN

V Preliminary Conclusion When relating the findings to the theoretical framework outlined in the introductory sections the following conclusions can be made First the case of the Czech Republic suggests that the onset of aid giving has primarily been driven by the international arena Intergovernmental and overseas governmental organizations provided the financial support necessary for capacity building They have also offered substantial transfer of foreign aid know-how Domestic actors such as political parties or non- governmental sector have not played a major role at this stage

Second evidence for the Czech Republic Hungary Poland and Slovakia reveals that the EU an international actor has played a major role in determining current ODA levels Significant growth of total ODA is evident only after the EU mandated and presented it as one of many conditions for EU accession The underlying influence of the EU also manifests itself in the multilateral aid disbursements of the Czech Republic where the vast majority of the funds go to the European Union budget

Third several trends show up when analyzing bilateral allocations For the Czech Republic Hungary Poland and Slovakia post-Yugoslavian nations have been primary recipients of foreign aid Pragmatism rather than altruism derived from recipient need is probably behind this pattern Geographical proximity cultural similarity and a shared experience of a communist past are factors potentially leading to effectiveness in aid allocations The case of the Czech Republic suggests that the non-governmental sector played a constitutive role in prioritizing former Yugoslavian countries

Starting mid-2000s the prioritizing of Afghanistan and Iraq in the Czech Hungarian and Slovak aid disbursements implies that the donors seek to strengthen their political coalition with Western powers Yet donor interest is combined with recipient need in the case of Afghanistan since the country is included on the list of least developed countries

Polish bilateral aid has also been strongly shaped by donor interest but one of a different nature As the country focuses on Kazakhstan natural resources endowed country with rapidly growing GNI economic interest is paramount

Lastly Slovak focus on Sudan in the last couple of years could represent a genuine altruistic response to recipient needs as Sudan belongs to the group of least developed countries (UN World Bank 2006) However it is too soon to conclude if allocations to Sudan form a long-term pattern or is they are merely isolated events without a solid institutional anchor

14

Overall donorsrsquo interest prevails over recipient need when analyzing bilateral allocations Yet different interests motivate the direction of bilateral disbursements Evidence suggests that political and economic motivations are the most frequent ones Recipient need is being reflected primarily when combined with donor interest Isolated instances of altruism occur sporadically

15

Appendix 1 Tables 1 ndash 4 Total Bilateral and Multilateral ODA

Donor Czech Republic Amount Constant Prices (2006 $ millions) Type of flow Net Disbursements Year 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Type of aid ODA 2769 2642 3173 4881 7004 11896 12419 14492 16086 15504 ODAGNI 003 003 003 005 007 011 011 011 012 011 Bilateral ODA 1006 1185 1249 2753 4832 10558 7288 6906 777 7377 Multilateral ODA 1763 1457 1924 2128 2173 1339 5131 7587 8316 8127

UN Agencies 1034 698 634 477 524 57 EC 3854 6619 6874 7167

Unspecified 1924 2128 1139 641 643 491 918 39

Donor Hungary Amount Constant Prices (2006 $ millions) Type of flow Net Disbursements Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Type of aid ODA 2501 716 9866 14949 7487 ODAGNI 003 007 011 014 007 Bilateral ODA 1637 3623 3889 8434 2813 Multilateral ODA 866 3536 5978 6515 4674

16

Donor Poland Amount Constant Prices (2006 $ millions) Type of flow Net Disbursements Year 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Type of aid ODA 2758 3208 4646 5226 2041 3693 14399 21656 29679 30628 ODAGNI 001 001 002 002 NA 001 005 007 009 009 Bilateral ODA 2012 2313 2104 4515 1273 2576 305 5072 11899 12426 Multilateral ODA 745 895 2541 711 769 1118 11349 16584 1778 18202

UN Agencies 966 398 EC 9376 1707

Unspecified 1007 16584 1778 734

Donor Slovak Republic Amount Constant Prices (2006 $ millions) Type of flow Net Disbursements Year 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Type of aid ODA 1445 1172 1648 1192 2084 3227 6032 5511 5546 ODAGNI 004 003 004 002 005 007 012 01 009 Bilateral ODA 805 342 675 664 1177 1229 3301 2475 2265 Multilateral ODA 64 83 973 528 905 1997 273 3036 3281

Appendix 2 Tables 1 ndash 4 Top 3 Recipients of Bilateral ODA Donor Czech Republic Amount Constant Prices (2006) $ million Type of flow ODA net disbursements

Year Country $ million 1998 1 Palestinian-Administered Territory 166

2 Vietnam 070 3 Bosnia-Herzegovina 053 Former Yugoslavia (total) 102

1999 1 Palestinian-Administered Territory 150

2 China 066 3 Bosnia-Herzegovina 055 Former Yugoslavia (total) 139

2000 1 Palestinian-Administered Territory 169 2 Mongolia 094 3 Bosnia-Herzegovina 092 Former Yugoslavia (total) 145

2001 1 Serbia 518 2 Vietnam 177 3 India 197 4 Moldova 171 Former Yugoslavia (total) 829

2002 1 Former Yugoslavia (total) 1100 2 India 221 3 Georgia 153 Former Yugoslavia (total) 1290

2003 1 Iraq 5250 2 Afghanistan 804 3 Serbia amp Montenegro 545 Former Yugoslavia (total) 1440

2004 1 Iraq 1568 2 Serbia amp Montenegro 790 3 Afghanistan 698 Former Yugoslavia (total) 1090

2005 1 Iraq 872 2 Serbia amp Montenegro 689 3 Ukraine 495 Former Yugoslavia (total) 1050

18

18

Donor Czech Republic Amount Constant Prices (2006) $ million Type of flow ODA net disbursements

Year Country $ million 2006 1 Iraq 118

2 Serbia 6 3 Afghanistan 42 Former Yugoslavia (total) 106

Donor Hungary Amount Constant Prices (2006) $ million Type of flow ODA net disbursements

Year Country $ million 2003 1 Serbia 305

2 Vietnam 052 3 Croatia 054 Former Yugoslavia (total) 55

2004 1 Bosnia-Herzegovina 1920 2 Serbia 332 3 Iraq 181 4 Afghanistan 166 Former Yugoslavia (total) 2314

2005 1 Serbia 1012 2 Yemen 986 3 Tanzania 941 Former Yugoslavia (total) 1023

2006 1 Iraq 6715 2 Afghanistan 039 3 Vietnam 031

Former Yugoslavia (total) 059

Donor Poland Amount Constant Prices (2006) $ million Type of flow ODA net disbursements

Year Country $ million 1998 1 Bosnia-Herzegovina 373

2 Vietnam 326 3 Kazakhstan 214 Former Yugoslavia (total) 419

19

19

Donor Poland Amount Constant Prices (2006) $ million Type of flow ODA net disbursements

Year Country $ million 1999 1 Bosnia-Herzegovina 355

2 Macedonia 282 3 Kazakhstan 234 Former Yugoslavia (total) 897

2000 1 Argentina 519 2 Kazakhstan 316 3 Vietnam 164 Former Yugoslavia (total) 174

2001 1 Yemen 347 2 Kazakhstan 256 3 Vietnam 232 Former Yugoslavia (total) 114

2002 1 China 528 2 Kazakhstan 24 3 Vietnam 044 Former Yugoslavia (total) 092

2003 1 Serbia 152 2 Kazakhstan 24 3 China 202 Former Yugoslavia (total) 157

2004 1 Ethiopia 107 2 Serbia 997 3 China 19 4 Kazakhstan 162 Former Yugoslavia (total) 104

2005 1 Serbia 198 2 Ukraine 651 3 Uzbekistan 63 Former Yugoslavia (total) 204

2006 1 Angola 924 2 Ukraine 651 3 Belarus 677 Former Yugoslavia (total) 175

20

20

Donor Slovak Republic Amount Constant Prices (2006) $ million Type of flow ODA net disbursements

Year $ million 2002 1 Former Yugoslavia (total) 083

2 Sudan 018 3 Kenya 016

2003 1 Former Yugoslavia (total) 307 2 Iraq 113 3 Kenya 039

2004 1 Former Yugoslavia (total) 364 2 Hong Kong China 158 3 Georgia 054 4 Afghanistan 043

2005 1 Sudan 1857 2 Afghanistan 474 3 Former Yugoslavia (total) 408

2006 1 Sudan 1498 2 Afghanistan 154 3 Mongolia 064

21

21

Reference Alesina A amp Dollar D (2000) Who Gives Foreign Aid to Whom and Why Journal of

Economic Growth 5 33-63 Bearce D H amp Tirone D C (2007) Foreign Aid Recipient Growth and the Strategic Goals

of Donor Governments manuscript for APSA 2007 Bertheacutelemy J-C amp Tichit A (2004) Bilateral donors aid allocations decisions - a three-

dimensional panel analysis International Review of Economics and Finance Caritas (2006) Vyrocni zprava 2005 Praha Ceska katolicka charita CEC (2006) Communication for the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament

Financing for Development and Aid Effectiveness ndash The challenges of scaling up EU aid 2006 ndash 2008

Granell F (2005) Can the Fifth Enlargement Weaken the EUs Development Cooperation Jean MonnetRobert Schuman Paper Series 5(24 August)

Isenman P (1976) Biases in Aid Allocations Against Poorer and Larger Countries World Development 44 631-641 King M Exnerova V Blazek O Eds (2006) Annual Report 2005 Prague People In Need

Lancaster C (2007) Foreign Aid Chicago and London The University of Chicago Press Maizels A amp Nissanke M K (1984) Motivations for Aid to Developing Countries World

Development 12(9) 870-900 Malkin B amp agencies (2006) Poland to Send More Troops to Afghanistan Guardian

Unlimited September 14 Retrieved 2202008 from wwwguardiancoukafghanistanstory0187212500html

McKinlay R D amp Little R (1977) A Foreign Policy Model of US Bilateral Aid Allocations World Politics 30 58-86

McKinlay R D amp Little R (1978i) The French Aid Relationship A Foreign Policy Model of the Disribution of French Bilateral Aid 1964-1970 Development and Change 9 459-478

McKinlay R D amp Little R (1978ii) A Foreign-Policy Model of the Distribution of British Billateral Aid1960-1970 British Journal of Political Science 8 313-331

McKinlay R D amp Little R (1978iii) The German Aid Relationship A Test of the Recipient Need and the Donor Interest 1960-1970 European Journal of Political Research 6 235-257

McKinlay R D amp Little R (1979) The US Aid Relationship A Test of the Recipient Need and the Donor Interest Model Political Studies 27 236-250

McNamara S (2007) ldquoThe PolishndashAmerican Relationship Deepening and Strengthening the Alliancerdquo Backgrounder 2010 February 27 1-13

Migliorisi S (2003) The Consequences of Enlargement for Development Policy (a report for European Commission)

Moravcsik A amp Vaduchova A M (2003) National Interest State Power and EU Enlargement East European Politics and Societies 17(1) 42-57

Morgenthau H (1962) A Political Theory of Foreign Aid The American Political Science Review 56(2) 301-309

Neumayer E (2003) The Pattern of Aid Giving London and New York Routledge OECD (2008) Glossary of Statistical Terms Retrieved 5282008 from

httpstatsoecdorgglossarydetailaspID=1176 OECD (2008) Development Cooperation Report 2007 (Summary) OECD-DAC (2007) DACs Glossary Retrieved 2202008 from

Schraeder P J Hook S W amp Taylor B (1998) ldquoClarifying the Foreign Aid Puzzle A

httpwwwoecdorgglossary02586en_2649_33721_1965693_1_1_1_100html1965586

22

22

Comparison of American Japanese French and Swedish Aid Flowsrdquo World Politics 50(2) 294-323

Snyder J (2004) One World Rival Theories Foreign Policy (NovDec) 52-62 Theacuterien J-P amp Noeumll A (2000) ldquoPolitical Parties and Foreign Aidrdquo American Political Science

Review 94 (March)(1) 151-162 UNDP (2008) The Human Development Report 20072008 Technical Note UN World Bank (2006) Measuring Progress in Least Developed Countries a statistical profile Waltz K (1979) Theory of International Politics New York Random House

  • R Schuman
    • Vol 5 No 19
    • December 2008
      • Introduction
      • This research aims to contribute to understanding why countries give foreign aid It focuses on the new donors of Central-Eastern Europe (the Czech Republic Hungary Poland and Slovakia) and the Baltic states (Estonia Latvia Lithuania) These cou

8

Graphs 1- 4 Bilateral vs Multilateral ODA

Czech Republic Bilateral vs Multilateral ODA

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Year

Multilateral ODA

Bilateral ODA

Slovak Republic Bilateral vs Multilateral ODA

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Year

Multilateral ODABilateral ODA

Poland Bilateral vs Multilateral ODA

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Year

Multilateral ODABilateral ODA

Hungary Bilateral vs Multilateral ODA

0

2040

60

80

100120

140

160

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Year

Multilateral ODA

Bilateral ODA

9

probably opposed by some segments within the new membersrsquo governments Nevertheless membership in the EU was a long-term economic and geopolitical interest of the Thus sacrificing a small fraction of their GNI as foreign aid was a minor cost compared to the benefits of EU membership

However experience from previous waves of enlargement shows that the logic of long-term benefits is oftentimes forgotten once applicants are in the Union 4

Another noticeable trend is that Iraq and Afghanistan have become major recipients of Czech foreign aid since in 2003 The two countries received almost 50 of total Czech bilateral aid in 2003 The flows have decreased since then but Iraq still obtains the most aid of all bilateral recipients Diplomatic purposes behind these disbursements are clear The Czech Republic entered into an alliance with the US and Western European powers after the end of the Cold War

Thus it is likely to expect that after accession new members would relax their commitment to EU membership pre-conditions This trend can be perhaps already witnessed in the case of the Czech Republic Hungary and Slovakia where ODAGNI ratio has decreased slightly in 2007 IV2 Bilateral Aid Are the bilateral allocations of the new donors driven by their interests or the recipients needs McKinlay and Little used these two independent variables to explain aid allocation for the first time in the 1970s (McKinlay Little 1977 1978iiiiii 1979) and they continue to be the most standardized variables today (eg Bearce Tirone 2007) Numerous studies have operationalized the variables in different ways Nevertheless most scholars have included political economic and cultural aspects within the donor interest variable (Neumayer 2003 p 19) I do the same in this research Further I operationalize recipient need based on identification with the group of Least Developed Countries This classification takes into account per capita income and combines it with quality of life indicators (UN World Bank 2006)

In the following section I discuss bilateral flows allocated by the Czech Hungarian Polish and Slovak governments OECD database does not include any data for disbursements from Estonia Latvia and Lithuania Czech Republic receives most attention in this section due to the availability of most detailed data and my most immediate experience with aid management in the country

In the Czech Republic bilateral aid was traditionally dispersed among many recipients in the period of 1998-2000 This dispersion happened mainly because ten ministries used to be responsible for project implementation (Migliorisi 2003) There were attempts to streamline the number of countries receiving aid by identifying eight long-term priority and two mid-term priority countries Yet the effort was not concentrated enough until the late-2000s For example the country carried out over 100 projects in about 35 countries in 2005

Starting in 2001 states of the former Yugoslavia have received more intensive attention According to the amount of total aid received Bosnia-Herzegovina Serbia and Moldova ranked among the top recipients (Appendix 2 Table 1) None of these countries belongs to the group of least developed countries thus the hypothesis of prioritizing based on recipient need can be rejected There are two possible alternative explanations for this choice of recipients First the former Yugoslavia is a region in Southern Europe thus geographical proximity is clearly an advantage when implementing the project Further Slavic populations prevail in all post-Yugoslavian countries The linguistic familiarity can additionally facilitate project management and effectiveness A second alternative explanation suggests that the Czech Republic started to be deeply engaged in former Yugoslavian countries because of the pressure of Czech NGOs Section IV3 will further discuss these hypotheses

4 Expansion of this idea can be found for example in Moravcsik A amp Vaduchova A M (2003) ldquoNational Interest State Power and EU Enlargementrdquo East European Politics and Societies 17(1) 42-57

10

Providing resources for operations conducted by its allies is a most efficient symbol of political support However in the case of Afghanistan altruistic motivations are also present since the country belongs to the group of least developed countries (UN World Bank 2006)

Hungary displays similar yet less distinct patterns than the Czech Republic (Appendix 2 Table 2) Former Yugoslavian countries remain the primary recipients of Hungarian bilateral ODA However Hungary provided a large proportion of its foreign aid to in 2004 and 2006 This timing parallels the military operations of Hungaryrsquos allies in these two countries In 2005 allocations to both Afghanistan and Iraq were only marginal ($ 007 and $ 038 million respectively) and this represents a deviation deserving further qualitative exploration The Polish case displays similar patterns in some regards yet it substantially differs in others The former Yugoslavia has been the highest recipient of Polish between the years 1998 ndash 2006 Nevertheless Polandrsquos disbursements to Iraq and Afghanistan have been rather negligible (Appendix 2 Table 3) This is a rather surprising trend Out of the seven examined countries Poland has traditionally been the closest ally to the US In 2005 President George W Bush asserted that Poland has been a fantastic ally (White House in McNamara 2007 p1) Poland is one of the four leading countries in the coalition for the War on Terror alongside Australia Britain and the US The Polish government initially sent 900 troops to Iraq In 2006 it committed an additional 900 troops to fight the insurgency in Afghanistan (Malkin and agencies 2006) Thus it would be reasonable to expect that US ndash Polish alliance would be reflected in the Polish preferences for top aid recipients However the evidence shows the opposite Iraq and Afghanistan received in 2006 only $047 million and $055 million respectively which refutes the hypothesis of political alliance between the US and Poland influencing aid disbursements Furthermore Poland shows a consistent commitment to Kazakhstan a former Soviet Republic With an annual PPP GDP of $ 10400 and 73 growth rate (CIA Fact sheet) Kazakhstan does not belong to the group of least developed countries Thus I refute altruistic explanation for this commitment On the contrary I hypothesize that this commitment is related to the fact that Kazakhstan possesses enormous fossil fuel reserves and plentiful supplies of other minerals and metals which could be potentially beneficial to the Polish economy In 2005 and 2006 Poland allocated relatively substantial sums to Belarus Ukraine and Uzbekistan three other post-Soviet countries It is too early to state whether these allocations represent a major trend However a potential explanation for these allocations could be a mix of economic considerations (especially in the case of Uzbekistan) connected with geographical proximity and cultural similarity For Slovakia as is the case with the other three new donors the primary focus has been the former Yugoslavia Afghanistan established itself as one of the major recipients of Slovak aid between 2004 and 2006 A combination of donor political interests and recipient need is probably reflected in this trend Afghanistan has been a major target for Western intervention and at the same time it belongs to the group of least developed countries Sudan has been a recipient of Slovak aid between the years of 2002 and 2006 which comprises the entire period of recorded Slovak bilateral disbursements In 2005 and 2006 Sudan became the biggest recipient of Slovak aid substantially ahead of other recipients Slovakia does not have any political nor economic interests in Sudan Sudan is a longstanding member of the least developed countries group thus it is of great need of foreign assistance Slovaks allocations seem to be responding to this need

In conclusion all four examined countries display a clear common pattern in their focus on the states from the former Yugoslavia which is probably motivated by geographical and cultural proximity While the Czech Republic Hungary and Slovakia strengthen their political alliance with Western powers thorough generous allocations to Afghanistan and Iraq Poland focuses on Kazakhstan a resourceful country once a part of the Soviet block Slovak allocations to Sudan seem to indicate altruistic motivations

11

IV3 Czech Republic Case Study Capacity Building What were the forces that shaped the onset stage of aid giving Has the institutional framework of the new economic policy towards developing countries developed as a result of domestic or international incentives

In 1995 the Czech Republic became a member of the OECD which fosters cooperation among developed democracies Within the organization the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) aims at improving governmental policies towards developing countries The Czech Republic obtained the status of an observer in 1996 which allowed it to participate in DAC activities without partaking in any negotiations

The DAC introduced Czech public sector administrators to its methods of collecting information on foreign aid flows in the second part of the 1990s Since then the country has adopted the concept of official development assistance as the principal unit for measuring its foreign aid disbursements Data based on the OECD methodology are available for the first time for the year 1999 Czech ODA in this year was $ 2642 million or 0027 of the GNI

In 1999 the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) launched a series of projects which aimed to create national capacities for international development cooperation Several administrators were trained in order to understand foreign aid concepts and managerial tools Further Czech administrators were able to visit developing countries and learn about the needs of potential aid recipients The UNDP financed the founding of the Development Center The Center was created outside of governmental structures at a research institute for international relations The main objective of the Center has been to carry out consultative services to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs which forms governmental strategies for foreign aid In doing so the Center has helped with the design of national policy for cooperation with developing countries The UNDP ceased capacity-building activities in 2004 just as the Czech government was about to enter the European Union The total of contributions from the UNDP towards Czech capacity-building has reached over USD 1 million over the course of five years The Czech government complemented the UNDP budget with an additional USD 012 million

In 2002 the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) which has a strong international reputation as a foreign aid agency launched a program for strengthening ODA delivery agencies in the Czech Republic Hungary Poland and Slovakia This five-year long project aimed to spend USD 15 million in order to increase the amount and quality of assistance given by new donors to developing countries The project has been divided into two phases The focus in the first phase was institutional support and capacity building The second phase was centered on trilateral cooperation when the CIDA and a new donor conduct projects in developing countries together The first phase in which the Czech Republic received training and technical assistance finished in 2004 when the CIDA declared the Czech institutional capacities as sufficient The second phase of trilateral cooperation finished in 2007 In 2008 the Development Center became a Development Agency fully comparable to those of OECDDAC members

The impact of CIDArsquos assistance on capacity building has been smaller than the UNDPrsquos impact Most of the resources allocated for the Czech Republic were further used for projects in developing countries However the collaboration of Czech administrators with their Canadian counterparts in project management led to significant know-how transfers for the Czech specialists

The aforementioned evidence shows that the initial setup for foreign aid management in the Czech Republic was heavily shaped by international institutions The OECD through the DAC provided expertise in policy design and introduced basic concepts used for aid processing The UNDP and CIDA financed national capacity building These organizations trained Czech

12

administrators to become experts in foreign aid and also were the force behind the origin of new institutional capacities which are now concentrated in the Czech Development Agency and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Bilateral Aid I have identified the states from the former Yugoslavia as the biggest recipients of Czech ODA In this section I claim that the Czech government has consistently been engaged in these countries because of pressure from domestic NGOrsquos

People in Need (PIN) is by far the largest non-governmental organization providing relief aid and development assistance in the Czech Republic It is one of the largest organizations of its kind in post-communist Europe and has administered projects in thirty-seven countries over the past fourteen years The annual budget of PIN in 2005 was 109 million EURO ($ 137 million) (King Exnerova Blazek eds 2006)

PIN began in 1992 when dissidents and leaders of the Czechoslovak Velvet Revolution teamed with conflict journalists working for the Czech Public Service Television They aimed to provide humanitarian aid to the civil war torn region of Nagorno-Karabakh (former USSR) Since then the activities of the organization have proliferated Although the organization works in fourteen countries in Asia Europe and Africa the main focus of its work has remained in the countries of the former Soviet Union or the former Soviet bloc The organization has been primarily involved in Ukraine Moldova and Tajikistan Throughout the nineties it provided robust assistance during the humanitarian interventions in the war-torn countries of the former Yugoslavia and later during the reconstruction of these areas According to PINrsquos long-term plan the organization would like to further contribute to the reconstruction of the countries of the former Yugoslavia The cultural similarities between the Czech Republic and the region of the Balkan should facilitate such assistance

Caritas is another organization working in the field of foreign humanitarian and development assistance Because the main objective of the organization is provision of social services in the Czech Republic the magnitude of its foreign projects is limited In 2005 the resources allocated to the activities abroad reached $ 16 million which was approximately one tenth of PINrsquos budget (Caritas 2006) Throughout the nineties the organization worked in Chechnya Georgia Ukraine Moldova and the countries of the Balkan which have received priority throughout the 1990s and in the beginning of the 21st century

Both organizations started their activities in former USSR countries and in the Balkan prior to the intensification of governmental flows into these countries The projects were primarily funded by donations or through multilateral agencies Later on governmental funding played a substantial role It is reasonable to expect that this change has occurred due to pressure from these organizations The government might have been easily willing to accommodate the NGOs as their experience in the regions ensured the quality and sustainability of projects Multilateral Aid Czech multilateral ODA disbursements (Graph 5) have followed a similar pattern as total ODA (Graph 1 p10) Multilateral ODA remained rather constant between the years 2000 ndash 2003 Starting in 2004 a dramatic increase occurred I have attributed this growth to entry into the EU in section IV1 This explanation is further reinforced when looking at the specific recipients of multilateral aid The European Union is by far the largest recipient following the year of the countryrsquos accession into the Union The importance of other recipients is decreasing or remains constant as in the case of the UN

13

Graph 5 Czech Republic Multilateral ODA Disbursements

Czech Republic Multilateral ODA Disbursements

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Year

UnspecifiedEC

UN

V Preliminary Conclusion When relating the findings to the theoretical framework outlined in the introductory sections the following conclusions can be made First the case of the Czech Republic suggests that the onset of aid giving has primarily been driven by the international arena Intergovernmental and overseas governmental organizations provided the financial support necessary for capacity building They have also offered substantial transfer of foreign aid know-how Domestic actors such as political parties or non- governmental sector have not played a major role at this stage

Second evidence for the Czech Republic Hungary Poland and Slovakia reveals that the EU an international actor has played a major role in determining current ODA levels Significant growth of total ODA is evident only after the EU mandated and presented it as one of many conditions for EU accession The underlying influence of the EU also manifests itself in the multilateral aid disbursements of the Czech Republic where the vast majority of the funds go to the European Union budget

Third several trends show up when analyzing bilateral allocations For the Czech Republic Hungary Poland and Slovakia post-Yugoslavian nations have been primary recipients of foreign aid Pragmatism rather than altruism derived from recipient need is probably behind this pattern Geographical proximity cultural similarity and a shared experience of a communist past are factors potentially leading to effectiveness in aid allocations The case of the Czech Republic suggests that the non-governmental sector played a constitutive role in prioritizing former Yugoslavian countries

Starting mid-2000s the prioritizing of Afghanistan and Iraq in the Czech Hungarian and Slovak aid disbursements implies that the donors seek to strengthen their political coalition with Western powers Yet donor interest is combined with recipient need in the case of Afghanistan since the country is included on the list of least developed countries

Polish bilateral aid has also been strongly shaped by donor interest but one of a different nature As the country focuses on Kazakhstan natural resources endowed country with rapidly growing GNI economic interest is paramount

Lastly Slovak focus on Sudan in the last couple of years could represent a genuine altruistic response to recipient needs as Sudan belongs to the group of least developed countries (UN World Bank 2006) However it is too soon to conclude if allocations to Sudan form a long-term pattern or is they are merely isolated events without a solid institutional anchor

14

Overall donorsrsquo interest prevails over recipient need when analyzing bilateral allocations Yet different interests motivate the direction of bilateral disbursements Evidence suggests that political and economic motivations are the most frequent ones Recipient need is being reflected primarily when combined with donor interest Isolated instances of altruism occur sporadically

15

Appendix 1 Tables 1 ndash 4 Total Bilateral and Multilateral ODA

Donor Czech Republic Amount Constant Prices (2006 $ millions) Type of flow Net Disbursements Year 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Type of aid ODA 2769 2642 3173 4881 7004 11896 12419 14492 16086 15504 ODAGNI 003 003 003 005 007 011 011 011 012 011 Bilateral ODA 1006 1185 1249 2753 4832 10558 7288 6906 777 7377 Multilateral ODA 1763 1457 1924 2128 2173 1339 5131 7587 8316 8127

UN Agencies 1034 698 634 477 524 57 EC 3854 6619 6874 7167

Unspecified 1924 2128 1139 641 643 491 918 39

Donor Hungary Amount Constant Prices (2006 $ millions) Type of flow Net Disbursements Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Type of aid ODA 2501 716 9866 14949 7487 ODAGNI 003 007 011 014 007 Bilateral ODA 1637 3623 3889 8434 2813 Multilateral ODA 866 3536 5978 6515 4674

16

Donor Poland Amount Constant Prices (2006 $ millions) Type of flow Net Disbursements Year 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Type of aid ODA 2758 3208 4646 5226 2041 3693 14399 21656 29679 30628 ODAGNI 001 001 002 002 NA 001 005 007 009 009 Bilateral ODA 2012 2313 2104 4515 1273 2576 305 5072 11899 12426 Multilateral ODA 745 895 2541 711 769 1118 11349 16584 1778 18202

UN Agencies 966 398 EC 9376 1707

Unspecified 1007 16584 1778 734

Donor Slovak Republic Amount Constant Prices (2006 $ millions) Type of flow Net Disbursements Year 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Type of aid ODA 1445 1172 1648 1192 2084 3227 6032 5511 5546 ODAGNI 004 003 004 002 005 007 012 01 009 Bilateral ODA 805 342 675 664 1177 1229 3301 2475 2265 Multilateral ODA 64 83 973 528 905 1997 273 3036 3281

Appendix 2 Tables 1 ndash 4 Top 3 Recipients of Bilateral ODA Donor Czech Republic Amount Constant Prices (2006) $ million Type of flow ODA net disbursements

Year Country $ million 1998 1 Palestinian-Administered Territory 166

2 Vietnam 070 3 Bosnia-Herzegovina 053 Former Yugoslavia (total) 102

1999 1 Palestinian-Administered Territory 150

2 China 066 3 Bosnia-Herzegovina 055 Former Yugoslavia (total) 139

2000 1 Palestinian-Administered Territory 169 2 Mongolia 094 3 Bosnia-Herzegovina 092 Former Yugoslavia (total) 145

2001 1 Serbia 518 2 Vietnam 177 3 India 197 4 Moldova 171 Former Yugoslavia (total) 829

2002 1 Former Yugoslavia (total) 1100 2 India 221 3 Georgia 153 Former Yugoslavia (total) 1290

2003 1 Iraq 5250 2 Afghanistan 804 3 Serbia amp Montenegro 545 Former Yugoslavia (total) 1440

2004 1 Iraq 1568 2 Serbia amp Montenegro 790 3 Afghanistan 698 Former Yugoslavia (total) 1090

2005 1 Iraq 872 2 Serbia amp Montenegro 689 3 Ukraine 495 Former Yugoslavia (total) 1050

18

18

Donor Czech Republic Amount Constant Prices (2006) $ million Type of flow ODA net disbursements

Year Country $ million 2006 1 Iraq 118

2 Serbia 6 3 Afghanistan 42 Former Yugoslavia (total) 106

Donor Hungary Amount Constant Prices (2006) $ million Type of flow ODA net disbursements

Year Country $ million 2003 1 Serbia 305

2 Vietnam 052 3 Croatia 054 Former Yugoslavia (total) 55

2004 1 Bosnia-Herzegovina 1920 2 Serbia 332 3 Iraq 181 4 Afghanistan 166 Former Yugoslavia (total) 2314

2005 1 Serbia 1012 2 Yemen 986 3 Tanzania 941 Former Yugoslavia (total) 1023

2006 1 Iraq 6715 2 Afghanistan 039 3 Vietnam 031

Former Yugoslavia (total) 059

Donor Poland Amount Constant Prices (2006) $ million Type of flow ODA net disbursements

Year Country $ million 1998 1 Bosnia-Herzegovina 373

2 Vietnam 326 3 Kazakhstan 214 Former Yugoslavia (total) 419

19

19

Donor Poland Amount Constant Prices (2006) $ million Type of flow ODA net disbursements

Year Country $ million 1999 1 Bosnia-Herzegovina 355

2 Macedonia 282 3 Kazakhstan 234 Former Yugoslavia (total) 897

2000 1 Argentina 519 2 Kazakhstan 316 3 Vietnam 164 Former Yugoslavia (total) 174

2001 1 Yemen 347 2 Kazakhstan 256 3 Vietnam 232 Former Yugoslavia (total) 114

2002 1 China 528 2 Kazakhstan 24 3 Vietnam 044 Former Yugoslavia (total) 092

2003 1 Serbia 152 2 Kazakhstan 24 3 China 202 Former Yugoslavia (total) 157

2004 1 Ethiopia 107 2 Serbia 997 3 China 19 4 Kazakhstan 162 Former Yugoslavia (total) 104

2005 1 Serbia 198 2 Ukraine 651 3 Uzbekistan 63 Former Yugoslavia (total) 204

2006 1 Angola 924 2 Ukraine 651 3 Belarus 677 Former Yugoslavia (total) 175

20

20

Donor Slovak Republic Amount Constant Prices (2006) $ million Type of flow ODA net disbursements

Year $ million 2002 1 Former Yugoslavia (total) 083

2 Sudan 018 3 Kenya 016

2003 1 Former Yugoslavia (total) 307 2 Iraq 113 3 Kenya 039

2004 1 Former Yugoslavia (total) 364 2 Hong Kong China 158 3 Georgia 054 4 Afghanistan 043

2005 1 Sudan 1857 2 Afghanistan 474 3 Former Yugoslavia (total) 408

2006 1 Sudan 1498 2 Afghanistan 154 3 Mongolia 064

21

21

Reference Alesina A amp Dollar D (2000) Who Gives Foreign Aid to Whom and Why Journal of

Economic Growth 5 33-63 Bearce D H amp Tirone D C (2007) Foreign Aid Recipient Growth and the Strategic Goals

of Donor Governments manuscript for APSA 2007 Bertheacutelemy J-C amp Tichit A (2004) Bilateral donors aid allocations decisions - a three-

dimensional panel analysis International Review of Economics and Finance Caritas (2006) Vyrocni zprava 2005 Praha Ceska katolicka charita CEC (2006) Communication for the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament

Financing for Development and Aid Effectiveness ndash The challenges of scaling up EU aid 2006 ndash 2008

Granell F (2005) Can the Fifth Enlargement Weaken the EUs Development Cooperation Jean MonnetRobert Schuman Paper Series 5(24 August)

Isenman P (1976) Biases in Aid Allocations Against Poorer and Larger Countries World Development 44 631-641 King M Exnerova V Blazek O Eds (2006) Annual Report 2005 Prague People In Need

Lancaster C (2007) Foreign Aid Chicago and London The University of Chicago Press Maizels A amp Nissanke M K (1984) Motivations for Aid to Developing Countries World

Development 12(9) 870-900 Malkin B amp agencies (2006) Poland to Send More Troops to Afghanistan Guardian

Unlimited September 14 Retrieved 2202008 from wwwguardiancoukafghanistanstory0187212500html

McKinlay R D amp Little R (1977) A Foreign Policy Model of US Bilateral Aid Allocations World Politics 30 58-86

McKinlay R D amp Little R (1978i) The French Aid Relationship A Foreign Policy Model of the Disribution of French Bilateral Aid 1964-1970 Development and Change 9 459-478

McKinlay R D amp Little R (1978ii) A Foreign-Policy Model of the Distribution of British Billateral Aid1960-1970 British Journal of Political Science 8 313-331

McKinlay R D amp Little R (1978iii) The German Aid Relationship A Test of the Recipient Need and the Donor Interest 1960-1970 European Journal of Political Research 6 235-257

McKinlay R D amp Little R (1979) The US Aid Relationship A Test of the Recipient Need and the Donor Interest Model Political Studies 27 236-250

McNamara S (2007) ldquoThe PolishndashAmerican Relationship Deepening and Strengthening the Alliancerdquo Backgrounder 2010 February 27 1-13

Migliorisi S (2003) The Consequences of Enlargement for Development Policy (a report for European Commission)

Moravcsik A amp Vaduchova A M (2003) National Interest State Power and EU Enlargement East European Politics and Societies 17(1) 42-57

Morgenthau H (1962) A Political Theory of Foreign Aid The American Political Science Review 56(2) 301-309

Neumayer E (2003) The Pattern of Aid Giving London and New York Routledge OECD (2008) Glossary of Statistical Terms Retrieved 5282008 from

httpstatsoecdorgglossarydetailaspID=1176 OECD (2008) Development Cooperation Report 2007 (Summary) OECD-DAC (2007) DACs Glossary Retrieved 2202008 from

Schraeder P J Hook S W amp Taylor B (1998) ldquoClarifying the Foreign Aid Puzzle A

httpwwwoecdorgglossary02586en_2649_33721_1965693_1_1_1_100html1965586

22

22

Comparison of American Japanese French and Swedish Aid Flowsrdquo World Politics 50(2) 294-323

Snyder J (2004) One World Rival Theories Foreign Policy (NovDec) 52-62 Theacuterien J-P amp Noeumll A (2000) ldquoPolitical Parties and Foreign Aidrdquo American Political Science

Review 94 (March)(1) 151-162 UNDP (2008) The Human Development Report 20072008 Technical Note UN World Bank (2006) Measuring Progress in Least Developed Countries a statistical profile Waltz K (1979) Theory of International Politics New York Random House

  • R Schuman
    • Vol 5 No 19
    • December 2008
      • Introduction
      • This research aims to contribute to understanding why countries give foreign aid It focuses on the new donors of Central-Eastern Europe (the Czech Republic Hungary Poland and Slovakia) and the Baltic states (Estonia Latvia Lithuania) These cou

9

probably opposed by some segments within the new membersrsquo governments Nevertheless membership in the EU was a long-term economic and geopolitical interest of the Thus sacrificing a small fraction of their GNI as foreign aid was a minor cost compared to the benefits of EU membership

However experience from previous waves of enlargement shows that the logic of long-term benefits is oftentimes forgotten once applicants are in the Union 4

Another noticeable trend is that Iraq and Afghanistan have become major recipients of Czech foreign aid since in 2003 The two countries received almost 50 of total Czech bilateral aid in 2003 The flows have decreased since then but Iraq still obtains the most aid of all bilateral recipients Diplomatic purposes behind these disbursements are clear The Czech Republic entered into an alliance with the US and Western European powers after the end of the Cold War

Thus it is likely to expect that after accession new members would relax their commitment to EU membership pre-conditions This trend can be perhaps already witnessed in the case of the Czech Republic Hungary and Slovakia where ODAGNI ratio has decreased slightly in 2007 IV2 Bilateral Aid Are the bilateral allocations of the new donors driven by their interests or the recipients needs McKinlay and Little used these two independent variables to explain aid allocation for the first time in the 1970s (McKinlay Little 1977 1978iiiiii 1979) and they continue to be the most standardized variables today (eg Bearce Tirone 2007) Numerous studies have operationalized the variables in different ways Nevertheless most scholars have included political economic and cultural aspects within the donor interest variable (Neumayer 2003 p 19) I do the same in this research Further I operationalize recipient need based on identification with the group of Least Developed Countries This classification takes into account per capita income and combines it with quality of life indicators (UN World Bank 2006)

In the following section I discuss bilateral flows allocated by the Czech Hungarian Polish and Slovak governments OECD database does not include any data for disbursements from Estonia Latvia and Lithuania Czech Republic receives most attention in this section due to the availability of most detailed data and my most immediate experience with aid management in the country

In the Czech Republic bilateral aid was traditionally dispersed among many recipients in the period of 1998-2000 This dispersion happened mainly because ten ministries used to be responsible for project implementation (Migliorisi 2003) There were attempts to streamline the number of countries receiving aid by identifying eight long-term priority and two mid-term priority countries Yet the effort was not concentrated enough until the late-2000s For example the country carried out over 100 projects in about 35 countries in 2005

Starting in 2001 states of the former Yugoslavia have received more intensive attention According to the amount of total aid received Bosnia-Herzegovina Serbia and Moldova ranked among the top recipients (Appendix 2 Table 1) None of these countries belongs to the group of least developed countries thus the hypothesis of prioritizing based on recipient need can be rejected There are two possible alternative explanations for this choice of recipients First the former Yugoslavia is a region in Southern Europe thus geographical proximity is clearly an advantage when implementing the project Further Slavic populations prevail in all post-Yugoslavian countries The linguistic familiarity can additionally facilitate project management and effectiveness A second alternative explanation suggests that the Czech Republic started to be deeply engaged in former Yugoslavian countries because of the pressure of Czech NGOs Section IV3 will further discuss these hypotheses

4 Expansion of this idea can be found for example in Moravcsik A amp Vaduchova A M (2003) ldquoNational Interest State Power and EU Enlargementrdquo East European Politics and Societies 17(1) 42-57

10

Providing resources for operations conducted by its allies is a most efficient symbol of political support However in the case of Afghanistan altruistic motivations are also present since the country belongs to the group of least developed countries (UN World Bank 2006)

Hungary displays similar yet less distinct patterns than the Czech Republic (Appendix 2 Table 2) Former Yugoslavian countries remain the primary recipients of Hungarian bilateral ODA However Hungary provided a large proportion of its foreign aid to in 2004 and 2006 This timing parallels the military operations of Hungaryrsquos allies in these two countries In 2005 allocations to both Afghanistan and Iraq were only marginal ($ 007 and $ 038 million respectively) and this represents a deviation deserving further qualitative exploration The Polish case displays similar patterns in some regards yet it substantially differs in others The former Yugoslavia has been the highest recipient of Polish between the years 1998 ndash 2006 Nevertheless Polandrsquos disbursements to Iraq and Afghanistan have been rather negligible (Appendix 2 Table 3) This is a rather surprising trend Out of the seven examined countries Poland has traditionally been the closest ally to the US In 2005 President George W Bush asserted that Poland has been a fantastic ally (White House in McNamara 2007 p1) Poland is one of the four leading countries in the coalition for the War on Terror alongside Australia Britain and the US The Polish government initially sent 900 troops to Iraq In 2006 it committed an additional 900 troops to fight the insurgency in Afghanistan (Malkin and agencies 2006) Thus it would be reasonable to expect that US ndash Polish alliance would be reflected in the Polish preferences for top aid recipients However the evidence shows the opposite Iraq and Afghanistan received in 2006 only $047 million and $055 million respectively which refutes the hypothesis of political alliance between the US and Poland influencing aid disbursements Furthermore Poland shows a consistent commitment to Kazakhstan a former Soviet Republic With an annual PPP GDP of $ 10400 and 73 growth rate (CIA Fact sheet) Kazakhstan does not belong to the group of least developed countries Thus I refute altruistic explanation for this commitment On the contrary I hypothesize that this commitment is related to the fact that Kazakhstan possesses enormous fossil fuel reserves and plentiful supplies of other minerals and metals which could be potentially beneficial to the Polish economy In 2005 and 2006 Poland allocated relatively substantial sums to Belarus Ukraine and Uzbekistan three other post-Soviet countries It is too early to state whether these allocations represent a major trend However a potential explanation for these allocations could be a mix of economic considerations (especially in the case of Uzbekistan) connected with geographical proximity and cultural similarity For Slovakia as is the case with the other three new donors the primary focus has been the former Yugoslavia Afghanistan established itself as one of the major recipients of Slovak aid between 2004 and 2006 A combination of donor political interests and recipient need is probably reflected in this trend Afghanistan has been a major target for Western intervention and at the same time it belongs to the group of least developed countries Sudan has been a recipient of Slovak aid between the years of 2002 and 2006 which comprises the entire period of recorded Slovak bilateral disbursements In 2005 and 2006 Sudan became the biggest recipient of Slovak aid substantially ahead of other recipients Slovakia does not have any political nor economic interests in Sudan Sudan is a longstanding member of the least developed countries group thus it is of great need of foreign assistance Slovaks allocations seem to be responding to this need

In conclusion all four examined countries display a clear common pattern in their focus on the states from the former Yugoslavia which is probably motivated by geographical and cultural proximity While the Czech Republic Hungary and Slovakia strengthen their political alliance with Western powers thorough generous allocations to Afghanistan and Iraq Poland focuses on Kazakhstan a resourceful country once a part of the Soviet block Slovak allocations to Sudan seem to indicate altruistic motivations

11

IV3 Czech Republic Case Study Capacity Building What were the forces that shaped the onset stage of aid giving Has the institutional framework of the new economic policy towards developing countries developed as a result of domestic or international incentives

In 1995 the Czech Republic became a member of the OECD which fosters cooperation among developed democracies Within the organization the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) aims at improving governmental policies towards developing countries The Czech Republic obtained the status of an observer in 1996 which allowed it to participate in DAC activities without partaking in any negotiations

The DAC introduced Czech public sector administrators to its methods of collecting information on foreign aid flows in the second part of the 1990s Since then the country has adopted the concept of official development assistance as the principal unit for measuring its foreign aid disbursements Data based on the OECD methodology are available for the first time for the year 1999 Czech ODA in this year was $ 2642 million or 0027 of the GNI

In 1999 the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) launched a series of projects which aimed to create national capacities for international development cooperation Several administrators were trained in order to understand foreign aid concepts and managerial tools Further Czech administrators were able to visit developing countries and learn about the needs of potential aid recipients The UNDP financed the founding of the Development Center The Center was created outside of governmental structures at a research institute for international relations The main objective of the Center has been to carry out consultative services to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs which forms governmental strategies for foreign aid In doing so the Center has helped with the design of national policy for cooperation with developing countries The UNDP ceased capacity-building activities in 2004 just as the Czech government was about to enter the European Union The total of contributions from the UNDP towards Czech capacity-building has reached over USD 1 million over the course of five years The Czech government complemented the UNDP budget with an additional USD 012 million

In 2002 the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) which has a strong international reputation as a foreign aid agency launched a program for strengthening ODA delivery agencies in the Czech Republic Hungary Poland and Slovakia This five-year long project aimed to spend USD 15 million in order to increase the amount and quality of assistance given by new donors to developing countries The project has been divided into two phases The focus in the first phase was institutional support and capacity building The second phase was centered on trilateral cooperation when the CIDA and a new donor conduct projects in developing countries together The first phase in which the Czech Republic received training and technical assistance finished in 2004 when the CIDA declared the Czech institutional capacities as sufficient The second phase of trilateral cooperation finished in 2007 In 2008 the Development Center became a Development Agency fully comparable to those of OECDDAC members

The impact of CIDArsquos assistance on capacity building has been smaller than the UNDPrsquos impact Most of the resources allocated for the Czech Republic were further used for projects in developing countries However the collaboration of Czech administrators with their Canadian counterparts in project management led to significant know-how transfers for the Czech specialists

The aforementioned evidence shows that the initial setup for foreign aid management in the Czech Republic was heavily shaped by international institutions The OECD through the DAC provided expertise in policy design and introduced basic concepts used for aid processing The UNDP and CIDA financed national capacity building These organizations trained Czech

12

administrators to become experts in foreign aid and also were the force behind the origin of new institutional capacities which are now concentrated in the Czech Development Agency and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Bilateral Aid I have identified the states from the former Yugoslavia as the biggest recipients of Czech ODA In this section I claim that the Czech government has consistently been engaged in these countries because of pressure from domestic NGOrsquos

People in Need (PIN) is by far the largest non-governmental organization providing relief aid and development assistance in the Czech Republic It is one of the largest organizations of its kind in post-communist Europe and has administered projects in thirty-seven countries over the past fourteen years The annual budget of PIN in 2005 was 109 million EURO ($ 137 million) (King Exnerova Blazek eds 2006)

PIN began in 1992 when dissidents and leaders of the Czechoslovak Velvet Revolution teamed with conflict journalists working for the Czech Public Service Television They aimed to provide humanitarian aid to the civil war torn region of Nagorno-Karabakh (former USSR) Since then the activities of the organization have proliferated Although the organization works in fourteen countries in Asia Europe and Africa the main focus of its work has remained in the countries of the former Soviet Union or the former Soviet bloc The organization has been primarily involved in Ukraine Moldova and Tajikistan Throughout the nineties it provided robust assistance during the humanitarian interventions in the war-torn countries of the former Yugoslavia and later during the reconstruction of these areas According to PINrsquos long-term plan the organization would like to further contribute to the reconstruction of the countries of the former Yugoslavia The cultural similarities between the Czech Republic and the region of the Balkan should facilitate such assistance

Caritas is another organization working in the field of foreign humanitarian and development assistance Because the main objective of the organization is provision of social services in the Czech Republic the magnitude of its foreign projects is limited In 2005 the resources allocated to the activities abroad reached $ 16 million which was approximately one tenth of PINrsquos budget (Caritas 2006) Throughout the nineties the organization worked in Chechnya Georgia Ukraine Moldova and the countries of the Balkan which have received priority throughout the 1990s and in the beginning of the 21st century

Both organizations started their activities in former USSR countries and in the Balkan prior to the intensification of governmental flows into these countries The projects were primarily funded by donations or through multilateral agencies Later on governmental funding played a substantial role It is reasonable to expect that this change has occurred due to pressure from these organizations The government might have been easily willing to accommodate the NGOs as their experience in the regions ensured the quality and sustainability of projects Multilateral Aid Czech multilateral ODA disbursements (Graph 5) have followed a similar pattern as total ODA (Graph 1 p10) Multilateral ODA remained rather constant between the years 2000 ndash 2003 Starting in 2004 a dramatic increase occurred I have attributed this growth to entry into the EU in section IV1 This explanation is further reinforced when looking at the specific recipients of multilateral aid The European Union is by far the largest recipient following the year of the countryrsquos accession into the Union The importance of other recipients is decreasing or remains constant as in the case of the UN

13

Graph 5 Czech Republic Multilateral ODA Disbursements

Czech Republic Multilateral ODA Disbursements

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Year

UnspecifiedEC

UN

V Preliminary Conclusion When relating the findings to the theoretical framework outlined in the introductory sections the following conclusions can be made First the case of the Czech Republic suggests that the onset of aid giving has primarily been driven by the international arena Intergovernmental and overseas governmental organizations provided the financial support necessary for capacity building They have also offered substantial transfer of foreign aid know-how Domestic actors such as political parties or non- governmental sector have not played a major role at this stage

Second evidence for the Czech Republic Hungary Poland and Slovakia reveals that the EU an international actor has played a major role in determining current ODA levels Significant growth of total ODA is evident only after the EU mandated and presented it as one of many conditions for EU accession The underlying influence of the EU also manifests itself in the multilateral aid disbursements of the Czech Republic where the vast majority of the funds go to the European Union budget

Third several trends show up when analyzing bilateral allocations For the Czech Republic Hungary Poland and Slovakia post-Yugoslavian nations have been primary recipients of foreign aid Pragmatism rather than altruism derived from recipient need is probably behind this pattern Geographical proximity cultural similarity and a shared experience of a communist past are factors potentially leading to effectiveness in aid allocations The case of the Czech Republic suggests that the non-governmental sector played a constitutive role in prioritizing former Yugoslavian countries

Starting mid-2000s the prioritizing of Afghanistan and Iraq in the Czech Hungarian and Slovak aid disbursements implies that the donors seek to strengthen their political coalition with Western powers Yet donor interest is combined with recipient need in the case of Afghanistan since the country is included on the list of least developed countries

Polish bilateral aid has also been strongly shaped by donor interest but one of a different nature As the country focuses on Kazakhstan natural resources endowed country with rapidly growing GNI economic interest is paramount

Lastly Slovak focus on Sudan in the last couple of years could represent a genuine altruistic response to recipient needs as Sudan belongs to the group of least developed countries (UN World Bank 2006) However it is too soon to conclude if allocations to Sudan form a long-term pattern or is they are merely isolated events without a solid institutional anchor

14

Overall donorsrsquo interest prevails over recipient need when analyzing bilateral allocations Yet different interests motivate the direction of bilateral disbursements Evidence suggests that political and economic motivations are the most frequent ones Recipient need is being reflected primarily when combined with donor interest Isolated instances of altruism occur sporadically

15

Appendix 1 Tables 1 ndash 4 Total Bilateral and Multilateral ODA

Donor Czech Republic Amount Constant Prices (2006 $ millions) Type of flow Net Disbursements Year 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Type of aid ODA 2769 2642 3173 4881 7004 11896 12419 14492 16086 15504 ODAGNI 003 003 003 005 007 011 011 011 012 011 Bilateral ODA 1006 1185 1249 2753 4832 10558 7288 6906 777 7377 Multilateral ODA 1763 1457 1924 2128 2173 1339 5131 7587 8316 8127

UN Agencies 1034 698 634 477 524 57 EC 3854 6619 6874 7167

Unspecified 1924 2128 1139 641 643 491 918 39

Donor Hungary Amount Constant Prices (2006 $ millions) Type of flow Net Disbursements Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Type of aid ODA 2501 716 9866 14949 7487 ODAGNI 003 007 011 014 007 Bilateral ODA 1637 3623 3889 8434 2813 Multilateral ODA 866 3536 5978 6515 4674

16

Donor Poland Amount Constant Prices (2006 $ millions) Type of flow Net Disbursements Year 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Type of aid ODA 2758 3208 4646 5226 2041 3693 14399 21656 29679 30628 ODAGNI 001 001 002 002 NA 001 005 007 009 009 Bilateral ODA 2012 2313 2104 4515 1273 2576 305 5072 11899 12426 Multilateral ODA 745 895 2541 711 769 1118 11349 16584 1778 18202

UN Agencies 966 398 EC 9376 1707

Unspecified 1007 16584 1778 734

Donor Slovak Republic Amount Constant Prices (2006 $ millions) Type of flow Net Disbursements Year 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Type of aid ODA 1445 1172 1648 1192 2084 3227 6032 5511 5546 ODAGNI 004 003 004 002 005 007 012 01 009 Bilateral ODA 805 342 675 664 1177 1229 3301 2475 2265 Multilateral ODA 64 83 973 528 905 1997 273 3036 3281

Appendix 2 Tables 1 ndash 4 Top 3 Recipients of Bilateral ODA Donor Czech Republic Amount Constant Prices (2006) $ million Type of flow ODA net disbursements

Year Country $ million 1998 1 Palestinian-Administered Territory 166

2 Vietnam 070 3 Bosnia-Herzegovina 053 Former Yugoslavia (total) 102

1999 1 Palestinian-Administered Territory 150

2 China 066 3 Bosnia-Herzegovina 055 Former Yugoslavia (total) 139

2000 1 Palestinian-Administered Territory 169 2 Mongolia 094 3 Bosnia-Herzegovina 092 Former Yugoslavia (total) 145

2001 1 Serbia 518 2 Vietnam 177 3 India 197 4 Moldova 171 Former Yugoslavia (total) 829

2002 1 Former Yugoslavia (total) 1100 2 India 221 3 Georgia 153 Former Yugoslavia (total) 1290

2003 1 Iraq 5250 2 Afghanistan 804 3 Serbia amp Montenegro 545 Former Yugoslavia (total) 1440

2004 1 Iraq 1568 2 Serbia amp Montenegro 790 3 Afghanistan 698 Former Yugoslavia (total) 1090

2005 1 Iraq 872 2 Serbia amp Montenegro 689 3 Ukraine 495 Former Yugoslavia (total) 1050

18

18

Donor Czech Republic Amount Constant Prices (2006) $ million Type of flow ODA net disbursements

Year Country $ million 2006 1 Iraq 118

2 Serbia 6 3 Afghanistan 42 Former Yugoslavia (total) 106

Donor Hungary Amount Constant Prices (2006) $ million Type of flow ODA net disbursements

Year Country $ million 2003 1 Serbia 305

2 Vietnam 052 3 Croatia 054 Former Yugoslavia (total) 55

2004 1 Bosnia-Herzegovina 1920 2 Serbia 332 3 Iraq 181 4 Afghanistan 166 Former Yugoslavia (total) 2314

2005 1 Serbia 1012 2 Yemen 986 3 Tanzania 941 Former Yugoslavia (total) 1023

2006 1 Iraq 6715 2 Afghanistan 039 3 Vietnam 031

Former Yugoslavia (total) 059

Donor Poland Amount Constant Prices (2006) $ million Type of flow ODA net disbursements

Year Country $ million 1998 1 Bosnia-Herzegovina 373

2 Vietnam 326 3 Kazakhstan 214 Former Yugoslavia (total) 419

19

19

Donor Poland Amount Constant Prices (2006) $ million Type of flow ODA net disbursements

Year Country $ million 1999 1 Bosnia-Herzegovina 355

2 Macedonia 282 3 Kazakhstan 234 Former Yugoslavia (total) 897

2000 1 Argentina 519 2 Kazakhstan 316 3 Vietnam 164 Former Yugoslavia (total) 174

2001 1 Yemen 347 2 Kazakhstan 256 3 Vietnam 232 Former Yugoslavia (total) 114

2002 1 China 528 2 Kazakhstan 24 3 Vietnam 044 Former Yugoslavia (total) 092

2003 1 Serbia 152 2 Kazakhstan 24 3 China 202 Former Yugoslavia (total) 157

2004 1 Ethiopia 107 2 Serbia 997 3 China 19 4 Kazakhstan 162 Former Yugoslavia (total) 104

2005 1 Serbia 198 2 Ukraine 651 3 Uzbekistan 63 Former Yugoslavia (total) 204

2006 1 Angola 924 2 Ukraine 651 3 Belarus 677 Former Yugoslavia (total) 175

20

20

Donor Slovak Republic Amount Constant Prices (2006) $ million Type of flow ODA net disbursements

Year $ million 2002 1 Former Yugoslavia (total) 083

2 Sudan 018 3 Kenya 016

2003 1 Former Yugoslavia (total) 307 2 Iraq 113 3 Kenya 039

2004 1 Former Yugoslavia (total) 364 2 Hong Kong China 158 3 Georgia 054 4 Afghanistan 043

2005 1 Sudan 1857 2 Afghanistan 474 3 Former Yugoslavia (total) 408

2006 1 Sudan 1498 2 Afghanistan 154 3 Mongolia 064

21

21

Reference Alesina A amp Dollar D (2000) Who Gives Foreign Aid to Whom and Why Journal of

Economic Growth 5 33-63 Bearce D H amp Tirone D C (2007) Foreign Aid Recipient Growth and the Strategic Goals

of Donor Governments manuscript for APSA 2007 Bertheacutelemy J-C amp Tichit A (2004) Bilateral donors aid allocations decisions - a three-

dimensional panel analysis International Review of Economics and Finance Caritas (2006) Vyrocni zprava 2005 Praha Ceska katolicka charita CEC (2006) Communication for the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament

Financing for Development and Aid Effectiveness ndash The challenges of scaling up EU aid 2006 ndash 2008

Granell F (2005) Can the Fifth Enlargement Weaken the EUs Development Cooperation Jean MonnetRobert Schuman Paper Series 5(24 August)

Isenman P (1976) Biases in Aid Allocations Against Poorer and Larger Countries World Development 44 631-641 King M Exnerova V Blazek O Eds (2006) Annual Report 2005 Prague People In Need

Lancaster C (2007) Foreign Aid Chicago and London The University of Chicago Press Maizels A amp Nissanke M K (1984) Motivations for Aid to Developing Countries World

Development 12(9) 870-900 Malkin B amp agencies (2006) Poland to Send More Troops to Afghanistan Guardian

Unlimited September 14 Retrieved 2202008 from wwwguardiancoukafghanistanstory0187212500html

McKinlay R D amp Little R (1977) A Foreign Policy Model of US Bilateral Aid Allocations World Politics 30 58-86

McKinlay R D amp Little R (1978i) The French Aid Relationship A Foreign Policy Model of the Disribution of French Bilateral Aid 1964-1970 Development and Change 9 459-478

McKinlay R D amp Little R (1978ii) A Foreign-Policy Model of the Distribution of British Billateral Aid1960-1970 British Journal of Political Science 8 313-331

McKinlay R D amp Little R (1978iii) The German Aid Relationship A Test of the Recipient Need and the Donor Interest 1960-1970 European Journal of Political Research 6 235-257

McKinlay R D amp Little R (1979) The US Aid Relationship A Test of the Recipient Need and the Donor Interest Model Political Studies 27 236-250

McNamara S (2007) ldquoThe PolishndashAmerican Relationship Deepening and Strengthening the Alliancerdquo Backgrounder 2010 February 27 1-13

Migliorisi S (2003) The Consequences of Enlargement for Development Policy (a report for European Commission)

Moravcsik A amp Vaduchova A M (2003) National Interest State Power and EU Enlargement East European Politics and Societies 17(1) 42-57

Morgenthau H (1962) A Political Theory of Foreign Aid The American Political Science Review 56(2) 301-309

Neumayer E (2003) The Pattern of Aid Giving London and New York Routledge OECD (2008) Glossary of Statistical Terms Retrieved 5282008 from

httpstatsoecdorgglossarydetailaspID=1176 OECD (2008) Development Cooperation Report 2007 (Summary) OECD-DAC (2007) DACs Glossary Retrieved 2202008 from

Schraeder P J Hook S W amp Taylor B (1998) ldquoClarifying the Foreign Aid Puzzle A

httpwwwoecdorgglossary02586en_2649_33721_1965693_1_1_1_100html1965586

22

22

Comparison of American Japanese French and Swedish Aid Flowsrdquo World Politics 50(2) 294-323

Snyder J (2004) One World Rival Theories Foreign Policy (NovDec) 52-62 Theacuterien J-P amp Noeumll A (2000) ldquoPolitical Parties and Foreign Aidrdquo American Political Science

Review 94 (March)(1) 151-162 UNDP (2008) The Human Development Report 20072008 Technical Note UN World Bank (2006) Measuring Progress in Least Developed Countries a statistical profile Waltz K (1979) Theory of International Politics New York Random House

  • R Schuman
    • Vol 5 No 19
    • December 2008
      • Introduction
      • This research aims to contribute to understanding why countries give foreign aid It focuses on the new donors of Central-Eastern Europe (the Czech Republic Hungary Poland and Slovakia) and the Baltic states (Estonia Latvia Lithuania) These cou

10

Providing resources for operations conducted by its allies is a most efficient symbol of political support However in the case of Afghanistan altruistic motivations are also present since the country belongs to the group of least developed countries (UN World Bank 2006)

Hungary displays similar yet less distinct patterns than the Czech Republic (Appendix 2 Table 2) Former Yugoslavian countries remain the primary recipients of Hungarian bilateral ODA However Hungary provided a large proportion of its foreign aid to in 2004 and 2006 This timing parallels the military operations of Hungaryrsquos allies in these two countries In 2005 allocations to both Afghanistan and Iraq were only marginal ($ 007 and $ 038 million respectively) and this represents a deviation deserving further qualitative exploration The Polish case displays similar patterns in some regards yet it substantially differs in others The former Yugoslavia has been the highest recipient of Polish between the years 1998 ndash 2006 Nevertheless Polandrsquos disbursements to Iraq and Afghanistan have been rather negligible (Appendix 2 Table 3) This is a rather surprising trend Out of the seven examined countries Poland has traditionally been the closest ally to the US In 2005 President George W Bush asserted that Poland has been a fantastic ally (White House in McNamara 2007 p1) Poland is one of the four leading countries in the coalition for the War on Terror alongside Australia Britain and the US The Polish government initially sent 900 troops to Iraq In 2006 it committed an additional 900 troops to fight the insurgency in Afghanistan (Malkin and agencies 2006) Thus it would be reasonable to expect that US ndash Polish alliance would be reflected in the Polish preferences for top aid recipients However the evidence shows the opposite Iraq and Afghanistan received in 2006 only $047 million and $055 million respectively which refutes the hypothesis of political alliance between the US and Poland influencing aid disbursements Furthermore Poland shows a consistent commitment to Kazakhstan a former Soviet Republic With an annual PPP GDP of $ 10400 and 73 growth rate (CIA Fact sheet) Kazakhstan does not belong to the group of least developed countries Thus I refute altruistic explanation for this commitment On the contrary I hypothesize that this commitment is related to the fact that Kazakhstan possesses enormous fossil fuel reserves and plentiful supplies of other minerals and metals which could be potentially beneficial to the Polish economy In 2005 and 2006 Poland allocated relatively substantial sums to Belarus Ukraine and Uzbekistan three other post-Soviet countries It is too early to state whether these allocations represent a major trend However a potential explanation for these allocations could be a mix of economic considerations (especially in the case of Uzbekistan) connected with geographical proximity and cultural similarity For Slovakia as is the case with the other three new donors the primary focus has been the former Yugoslavia Afghanistan established itself as one of the major recipients of Slovak aid between 2004 and 2006 A combination of donor political interests and recipient need is probably reflected in this trend Afghanistan has been a major target for Western intervention and at the same time it belongs to the group of least developed countries Sudan has been a recipient of Slovak aid between the years of 2002 and 2006 which comprises the entire period of recorded Slovak bilateral disbursements In 2005 and 2006 Sudan became the biggest recipient of Slovak aid substantially ahead of other recipients Slovakia does not have any political nor economic interests in Sudan Sudan is a longstanding member of the least developed countries group thus it is of great need of foreign assistance Slovaks allocations seem to be responding to this need

In conclusion all four examined countries display a clear common pattern in their focus on the states from the former Yugoslavia which is probably motivated by geographical and cultural proximity While the Czech Republic Hungary and Slovakia strengthen their political alliance with Western powers thorough generous allocations to Afghanistan and Iraq Poland focuses on Kazakhstan a resourceful country once a part of the Soviet block Slovak allocations to Sudan seem to indicate altruistic motivations

11

IV3 Czech Republic Case Study Capacity Building What were the forces that shaped the onset stage of aid giving Has the institutional framework of the new economic policy towards developing countries developed as a result of domestic or international incentives

In 1995 the Czech Republic became a member of the OECD which fosters cooperation among developed democracies Within the organization the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) aims at improving governmental policies towards developing countries The Czech Republic obtained the status of an observer in 1996 which allowed it to participate in DAC activities without partaking in any negotiations

The DAC introduced Czech public sector administrators to its methods of collecting information on foreign aid flows in the second part of the 1990s Since then the country has adopted the concept of official development assistance as the principal unit for measuring its foreign aid disbursements Data based on the OECD methodology are available for the first time for the year 1999 Czech ODA in this year was $ 2642 million or 0027 of the GNI

In 1999 the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) launched a series of projects which aimed to create national capacities for international development cooperation Several administrators were trained in order to understand foreign aid concepts and managerial tools Further Czech administrators were able to visit developing countries and learn about the needs of potential aid recipients The UNDP financed the founding of the Development Center The Center was created outside of governmental structures at a research institute for international relations The main objective of the Center has been to carry out consultative services to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs which forms governmental strategies for foreign aid In doing so the Center has helped with the design of national policy for cooperation with developing countries The UNDP ceased capacity-building activities in 2004 just as the Czech government was about to enter the European Union The total of contributions from the UNDP towards Czech capacity-building has reached over USD 1 million over the course of five years The Czech government complemented the UNDP budget with an additional USD 012 million

In 2002 the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) which has a strong international reputation as a foreign aid agency launched a program for strengthening ODA delivery agencies in the Czech Republic Hungary Poland and Slovakia This five-year long project aimed to spend USD 15 million in order to increase the amount and quality of assistance given by new donors to developing countries The project has been divided into two phases The focus in the first phase was institutional support and capacity building The second phase was centered on trilateral cooperation when the CIDA and a new donor conduct projects in developing countries together The first phase in which the Czech Republic received training and technical assistance finished in 2004 when the CIDA declared the Czech institutional capacities as sufficient The second phase of trilateral cooperation finished in 2007 In 2008 the Development Center became a Development Agency fully comparable to those of OECDDAC members

The impact of CIDArsquos assistance on capacity building has been smaller than the UNDPrsquos impact Most of the resources allocated for the Czech Republic were further used for projects in developing countries However the collaboration of Czech administrators with their Canadian counterparts in project management led to significant know-how transfers for the Czech specialists

The aforementioned evidence shows that the initial setup for foreign aid management in the Czech Republic was heavily shaped by international institutions The OECD through the DAC provided expertise in policy design and introduced basic concepts used for aid processing The UNDP and CIDA financed national capacity building These organizations trained Czech

12

administrators to become experts in foreign aid and also were the force behind the origin of new institutional capacities which are now concentrated in the Czech Development Agency and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Bilateral Aid I have identified the states from the former Yugoslavia as the biggest recipients of Czech ODA In this section I claim that the Czech government has consistently been engaged in these countries because of pressure from domestic NGOrsquos

People in Need (PIN) is by far the largest non-governmental organization providing relief aid and development assistance in the Czech Republic It is one of the largest organizations of its kind in post-communist Europe and has administered projects in thirty-seven countries over the past fourteen years The annual budget of PIN in 2005 was 109 million EURO ($ 137 million) (King Exnerova Blazek eds 2006)

PIN began in 1992 when dissidents and leaders of the Czechoslovak Velvet Revolution teamed with conflict journalists working for the Czech Public Service Television They aimed to provide humanitarian aid to the civil war torn region of Nagorno-Karabakh (former USSR) Since then the activities of the organization have proliferated Although the organization works in fourteen countries in Asia Europe and Africa the main focus of its work has remained in the countries of the former Soviet Union or the former Soviet bloc The organization has been primarily involved in Ukraine Moldova and Tajikistan Throughout the nineties it provided robust assistance during the humanitarian interventions in the war-torn countries of the former Yugoslavia and later during the reconstruction of these areas According to PINrsquos long-term plan the organization would like to further contribute to the reconstruction of the countries of the former Yugoslavia The cultural similarities between the Czech Republic and the region of the Balkan should facilitate such assistance

Caritas is another organization working in the field of foreign humanitarian and development assistance Because the main objective of the organization is provision of social services in the Czech Republic the magnitude of its foreign projects is limited In 2005 the resources allocated to the activities abroad reached $ 16 million which was approximately one tenth of PINrsquos budget (Caritas 2006) Throughout the nineties the organization worked in Chechnya Georgia Ukraine Moldova and the countries of the Balkan which have received priority throughout the 1990s and in the beginning of the 21st century

Both organizations started their activities in former USSR countries and in the Balkan prior to the intensification of governmental flows into these countries The projects were primarily funded by donations or through multilateral agencies Later on governmental funding played a substantial role It is reasonable to expect that this change has occurred due to pressure from these organizations The government might have been easily willing to accommodate the NGOs as their experience in the regions ensured the quality and sustainability of projects Multilateral Aid Czech multilateral ODA disbursements (Graph 5) have followed a similar pattern as total ODA (Graph 1 p10) Multilateral ODA remained rather constant between the years 2000 ndash 2003 Starting in 2004 a dramatic increase occurred I have attributed this growth to entry into the EU in section IV1 This explanation is further reinforced when looking at the specific recipients of multilateral aid The European Union is by far the largest recipient following the year of the countryrsquos accession into the Union The importance of other recipients is decreasing or remains constant as in the case of the UN

13

Graph 5 Czech Republic Multilateral ODA Disbursements

Czech Republic Multilateral ODA Disbursements

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Year

UnspecifiedEC

UN

V Preliminary Conclusion When relating the findings to the theoretical framework outlined in the introductory sections the following conclusions can be made First the case of the Czech Republic suggests that the onset of aid giving has primarily been driven by the international arena Intergovernmental and overseas governmental organizations provided the financial support necessary for capacity building They have also offered substantial transfer of foreign aid know-how Domestic actors such as political parties or non- governmental sector have not played a major role at this stage

Second evidence for the Czech Republic Hungary Poland and Slovakia reveals that the EU an international actor has played a major role in determining current ODA levels Significant growth of total ODA is evident only after the EU mandated and presented it as one of many conditions for EU accession The underlying influence of the EU also manifests itself in the multilateral aid disbursements of the Czech Republic where the vast majority of the funds go to the European Union budget

Third several trends show up when analyzing bilateral allocations For the Czech Republic Hungary Poland and Slovakia post-Yugoslavian nations have been primary recipients of foreign aid Pragmatism rather than altruism derived from recipient need is probably behind this pattern Geographical proximity cultural similarity and a shared experience of a communist past are factors potentially leading to effectiveness in aid allocations The case of the Czech Republic suggests that the non-governmental sector played a constitutive role in prioritizing former Yugoslavian countries

Starting mid-2000s the prioritizing of Afghanistan and Iraq in the Czech Hungarian and Slovak aid disbursements implies that the donors seek to strengthen their political coalition with Western powers Yet donor interest is combined with recipient need in the case of Afghanistan since the country is included on the list of least developed countries

Polish bilateral aid has also been strongly shaped by donor interest but one of a different nature As the country focuses on Kazakhstan natural resources endowed country with rapidly growing GNI economic interest is paramount

Lastly Slovak focus on Sudan in the last couple of years could represent a genuine altruistic response to recipient needs as Sudan belongs to the group of least developed countries (UN World Bank 2006) However it is too soon to conclude if allocations to Sudan form a long-term pattern or is they are merely isolated events without a solid institutional anchor

14

Overall donorsrsquo interest prevails over recipient need when analyzing bilateral allocations Yet different interests motivate the direction of bilateral disbursements Evidence suggests that political and economic motivations are the most frequent ones Recipient need is being reflected primarily when combined with donor interest Isolated instances of altruism occur sporadically

15

Appendix 1 Tables 1 ndash 4 Total Bilateral and Multilateral ODA

Donor Czech Republic Amount Constant Prices (2006 $ millions) Type of flow Net Disbursements Year 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Type of aid ODA 2769 2642 3173 4881 7004 11896 12419 14492 16086 15504 ODAGNI 003 003 003 005 007 011 011 011 012 011 Bilateral ODA 1006 1185 1249 2753 4832 10558 7288 6906 777 7377 Multilateral ODA 1763 1457 1924 2128 2173 1339 5131 7587 8316 8127

UN Agencies 1034 698 634 477 524 57 EC 3854 6619 6874 7167

Unspecified 1924 2128 1139 641 643 491 918 39

Donor Hungary Amount Constant Prices (2006 $ millions) Type of flow Net Disbursements Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Type of aid ODA 2501 716 9866 14949 7487 ODAGNI 003 007 011 014 007 Bilateral ODA 1637 3623 3889 8434 2813 Multilateral ODA 866 3536 5978 6515 4674

16

Donor Poland Amount Constant Prices (2006 $ millions) Type of flow Net Disbursements Year 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Type of aid ODA 2758 3208 4646 5226 2041 3693 14399 21656 29679 30628 ODAGNI 001 001 002 002 NA 001 005 007 009 009 Bilateral ODA 2012 2313 2104 4515 1273 2576 305 5072 11899 12426 Multilateral ODA 745 895 2541 711 769 1118 11349 16584 1778 18202

UN Agencies 966 398 EC 9376 1707

Unspecified 1007 16584 1778 734

Donor Slovak Republic Amount Constant Prices (2006 $ millions) Type of flow Net Disbursements Year 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Type of aid ODA 1445 1172 1648 1192 2084 3227 6032 5511 5546 ODAGNI 004 003 004 002 005 007 012 01 009 Bilateral ODA 805 342 675 664 1177 1229 3301 2475 2265 Multilateral ODA 64 83 973 528 905 1997 273 3036 3281

Appendix 2 Tables 1 ndash 4 Top 3 Recipients of Bilateral ODA Donor Czech Republic Amount Constant Prices (2006) $ million Type of flow ODA net disbursements

Year Country $ million 1998 1 Palestinian-Administered Territory 166

2 Vietnam 070 3 Bosnia-Herzegovina 053 Former Yugoslavia (total) 102

1999 1 Palestinian-Administered Territory 150

2 China 066 3 Bosnia-Herzegovina 055 Former Yugoslavia (total) 139

2000 1 Palestinian-Administered Territory 169 2 Mongolia 094 3 Bosnia-Herzegovina 092 Former Yugoslavia (total) 145

2001 1 Serbia 518 2 Vietnam 177 3 India 197 4 Moldova 171 Former Yugoslavia (total) 829

2002 1 Former Yugoslavia (total) 1100 2 India 221 3 Georgia 153 Former Yugoslavia (total) 1290

2003 1 Iraq 5250 2 Afghanistan 804 3 Serbia amp Montenegro 545 Former Yugoslavia (total) 1440

2004 1 Iraq 1568 2 Serbia amp Montenegro 790 3 Afghanistan 698 Former Yugoslavia (total) 1090

2005 1 Iraq 872 2 Serbia amp Montenegro 689 3 Ukraine 495 Former Yugoslavia (total) 1050

18

18

Donor Czech Republic Amount Constant Prices (2006) $ million Type of flow ODA net disbursements

Year Country $ million 2006 1 Iraq 118

2 Serbia 6 3 Afghanistan 42 Former Yugoslavia (total) 106

Donor Hungary Amount Constant Prices (2006) $ million Type of flow ODA net disbursements

Year Country $ million 2003 1 Serbia 305

2 Vietnam 052 3 Croatia 054 Former Yugoslavia (total) 55

2004 1 Bosnia-Herzegovina 1920 2 Serbia 332 3 Iraq 181 4 Afghanistan 166 Former Yugoslavia (total) 2314

2005 1 Serbia 1012 2 Yemen 986 3 Tanzania 941 Former Yugoslavia (total) 1023

2006 1 Iraq 6715 2 Afghanistan 039 3 Vietnam 031

Former Yugoslavia (total) 059

Donor Poland Amount Constant Prices (2006) $ million Type of flow ODA net disbursements

Year Country $ million 1998 1 Bosnia-Herzegovina 373

2 Vietnam 326 3 Kazakhstan 214 Former Yugoslavia (total) 419

19

19

Donor Poland Amount Constant Prices (2006) $ million Type of flow ODA net disbursements

Year Country $ million 1999 1 Bosnia-Herzegovina 355

2 Macedonia 282 3 Kazakhstan 234 Former Yugoslavia (total) 897

2000 1 Argentina 519 2 Kazakhstan 316 3 Vietnam 164 Former Yugoslavia (total) 174

2001 1 Yemen 347 2 Kazakhstan 256 3 Vietnam 232 Former Yugoslavia (total) 114

2002 1 China 528 2 Kazakhstan 24 3 Vietnam 044 Former Yugoslavia (total) 092

2003 1 Serbia 152 2 Kazakhstan 24 3 China 202 Former Yugoslavia (total) 157

2004 1 Ethiopia 107 2 Serbia 997 3 China 19 4 Kazakhstan 162 Former Yugoslavia (total) 104

2005 1 Serbia 198 2 Ukraine 651 3 Uzbekistan 63 Former Yugoslavia (total) 204

2006 1 Angola 924 2 Ukraine 651 3 Belarus 677 Former Yugoslavia (total) 175

20

20

Donor Slovak Republic Amount Constant Prices (2006) $ million Type of flow ODA net disbursements

Year $ million 2002 1 Former Yugoslavia (total) 083

2 Sudan 018 3 Kenya 016

2003 1 Former Yugoslavia (total) 307 2 Iraq 113 3 Kenya 039

2004 1 Former Yugoslavia (total) 364 2 Hong Kong China 158 3 Georgia 054 4 Afghanistan 043

2005 1 Sudan 1857 2 Afghanistan 474 3 Former Yugoslavia (total) 408

2006 1 Sudan 1498 2 Afghanistan 154 3 Mongolia 064

21

21

Reference Alesina A amp Dollar D (2000) Who Gives Foreign Aid to Whom and Why Journal of

Economic Growth 5 33-63 Bearce D H amp Tirone D C (2007) Foreign Aid Recipient Growth and the Strategic Goals

of Donor Governments manuscript for APSA 2007 Bertheacutelemy J-C amp Tichit A (2004) Bilateral donors aid allocations decisions - a three-

dimensional panel analysis International Review of Economics and Finance Caritas (2006) Vyrocni zprava 2005 Praha Ceska katolicka charita CEC (2006) Communication for the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament

Financing for Development and Aid Effectiveness ndash The challenges of scaling up EU aid 2006 ndash 2008

Granell F (2005) Can the Fifth Enlargement Weaken the EUs Development Cooperation Jean MonnetRobert Schuman Paper Series 5(24 August)

Isenman P (1976) Biases in Aid Allocations Against Poorer and Larger Countries World Development 44 631-641 King M Exnerova V Blazek O Eds (2006) Annual Report 2005 Prague People In Need

Lancaster C (2007) Foreign Aid Chicago and London The University of Chicago Press Maizels A amp Nissanke M K (1984) Motivations for Aid to Developing Countries World

Development 12(9) 870-900 Malkin B amp agencies (2006) Poland to Send More Troops to Afghanistan Guardian

Unlimited September 14 Retrieved 2202008 from wwwguardiancoukafghanistanstory0187212500html

McKinlay R D amp Little R (1977) A Foreign Policy Model of US Bilateral Aid Allocations World Politics 30 58-86

McKinlay R D amp Little R (1978i) The French Aid Relationship A Foreign Policy Model of the Disribution of French Bilateral Aid 1964-1970 Development and Change 9 459-478

McKinlay R D amp Little R (1978ii) A Foreign-Policy Model of the Distribution of British Billateral Aid1960-1970 British Journal of Political Science 8 313-331

McKinlay R D amp Little R (1978iii) The German Aid Relationship A Test of the Recipient Need and the Donor Interest 1960-1970 European Journal of Political Research 6 235-257

McKinlay R D amp Little R (1979) The US Aid Relationship A Test of the Recipient Need and the Donor Interest Model Political Studies 27 236-250

McNamara S (2007) ldquoThe PolishndashAmerican Relationship Deepening and Strengthening the Alliancerdquo Backgrounder 2010 February 27 1-13

Migliorisi S (2003) The Consequences of Enlargement for Development Policy (a report for European Commission)

Moravcsik A amp Vaduchova A M (2003) National Interest State Power and EU Enlargement East European Politics and Societies 17(1) 42-57

Morgenthau H (1962) A Political Theory of Foreign Aid The American Political Science Review 56(2) 301-309

Neumayer E (2003) The Pattern of Aid Giving London and New York Routledge OECD (2008) Glossary of Statistical Terms Retrieved 5282008 from

httpstatsoecdorgglossarydetailaspID=1176 OECD (2008) Development Cooperation Report 2007 (Summary) OECD-DAC (2007) DACs Glossary Retrieved 2202008 from

Schraeder P J Hook S W amp Taylor B (1998) ldquoClarifying the Foreign Aid Puzzle A

httpwwwoecdorgglossary02586en_2649_33721_1965693_1_1_1_100html1965586

22

22

Comparison of American Japanese French and Swedish Aid Flowsrdquo World Politics 50(2) 294-323

Snyder J (2004) One World Rival Theories Foreign Policy (NovDec) 52-62 Theacuterien J-P amp Noeumll A (2000) ldquoPolitical Parties and Foreign Aidrdquo American Political Science

Review 94 (March)(1) 151-162 UNDP (2008) The Human Development Report 20072008 Technical Note UN World Bank (2006) Measuring Progress in Least Developed Countries a statistical profile Waltz K (1979) Theory of International Politics New York Random House

  • R Schuman
    • Vol 5 No 19
    • December 2008
      • Introduction
      • This research aims to contribute to understanding why countries give foreign aid It focuses on the new donors of Central-Eastern Europe (the Czech Republic Hungary Poland and Slovakia) and the Baltic states (Estonia Latvia Lithuania) These cou

11

IV3 Czech Republic Case Study Capacity Building What were the forces that shaped the onset stage of aid giving Has the institutional framework of the new economic policy towards developing countries developed as a result of domestic or international incentives

In 1995 the Czech Republic became a member of the OECD which fosters cooperation among developed democracies Within the organization the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) aims at improving governmental policies towards developing countries The Czech Republic obtained the status of an observer in 1996 which allowed it to participate in DAC activities without partaking in any negotiations

The DAC introduced Czech public sector administrators to its methods of collecting information on foreign aid flows in the second part of the 1990s Since then the country has adopted the concept of official development assistance as the principal unit for measuring its foreign aid disbursements Data based on the OECD methodology are available for the first time for the year 1999 Czech ODA in this year was $ 2642 million or 0027 of the GNI

In 1999 the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) launched a series of projects which aimed to create national capacities for international development cooperation Several administrators were trained in order to understand foreign aid concepts and managerial tools Further Czech administrators were able to visit developing countries and learn about the needs of potential aid recipients The UNDP financed the founding of the Development Center The Center was created outside of governmental structures at a research institute for international relations The main objective of the Center has been to carry out consultative services to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs which forms governmental strategies for foreign aid In doing so the Center has helped with the design of national policy for cooperation with developing countries The UNDP ceased capacity-building activities in 2004 just as the Czech government was about to enter the European Union The total of contributions from the UNDP towards Czech capacity-building has reached over USD 1 million over the course of five years The Czech government complemented the UNDP budget with an additional USD 012 million

In 2002 the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) which has a strong international reputation as a foreign aid agency launched a program for strengthening ODA delivery agencies in the Czech Republic Hungary Poland and Slovakia This five-year long project aimed to spend USD 15 million in order to increase the amount and quality of assistance given by new donors to developing countries The project has been divided into two phases The focus in the first phase was institutional support and capacity building The second phase was centered on trilateral cooperation when the CIDA and a new donor conduct projects in developing countries together The first phase in which the Czech Republic received training and technical assistance finished in 2004 when the CIDA declared the Czech institutional capacities as sufficient The second phase of trilateral cooperation finished in 2007 In 2008 the Development Center became a Development Agency fully comparable to those of OECDDAC members

The impact of CIDArsquos assistance on capacity building has been smaller than the UNDPrsquos impact Most of the resources allocated for the Czech Republic were further used for projects in developing countries However the collaboration of Czech administrators with their Canadian counterparts in project management led to significant know-how transfers for the Czech specialists

The aforementioned evidence shows that the initial setup for foreign aid management in the Czech Republic was heavily shaped by international institutions The OECD through the DAC provided expertise in policy design and introduced basic concepts used for aid processing The UNDP and CIDA financed national capacity building These organizations trained Czech

12

administrators to become experts in foreign aid and also were the force behind the origin of new institutional capacities which are now concentrated in the Czech Development Agency and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Bilateral Aid I have identified the states from the former Yugoslavia as the biggest recipients of Czech ODA In this section I claim that the Czech government has consistently been engaged in these countries because of pressure from domestic NGOrsquos

People in Need (PIN) is by far the largest non-governmental organization providing relief aid and development assistance in the Czech Republic It is one of the largest organizations of its kind in post-communist Europe and has administered projects in thirty-seven countries over the past fourteen years The annual budget of PIN in 2005 was 109 million EURO ($ 137 million) (King Exnerova Blazek eds 2006)

PIN began in 1992 when dissidents and leaders of the Czechoslovak Velvet Revolution teamed with conflict journalists working for the Czech Public Service Television They aimed to provide humanitarian aid to the civil war torn region of Nagorno-Karabakh (former USSR) Since then the activities of the organization have proliferated Although the organization works in fourteen countries in Asia Europe and Africa the main focus of its work has remained in the countries of the former Soviet Union or the former Soviet bloc The organization has been primarily involved in Ukraine Moldova and Tajikistan Throughout the nineties it provided robust assistance during the humanitarian interventions in the war-torn countries of the former Yugoslavia and later during the reconstruction of these areas According to PINrsquos long-term plan the organization would like to further contribute to the reconstruction of the countries of the former Yugoslavia The cultural similarities between the Czech Republic and the region of the Balkan should facilitate such assistance

Caritas is another organization working in the field of foreign humanitarian and development assistance Because the main objective of the organization is provision of social services in the Czech Republic the magnitude of its foreign projects is limited In 2005 the resources allocated to the activities abroad reached $ 16 million which was approximately one tenth of PINrsquos budget (Caritas 2006) Throughout the nineties the organization worked in Chechnya Georgia Ukraine Moldova and the countries of the Balkan which have received priority throughout the 1990s and in the beginning of the 21st century

Both organizations started their activities in former USSR countries and in the Balkan prior to the intensification of governmental flows into these countries The projects were primarily funded by donations or through multilateral agencies Later on governmental funding played a substantial role It is reasonable to expect that this change has occurred due to pressure from these organizations The government might have been easily willing to accommodate the NGOs as their experience in the regions ensured the quality and sustainability of projects Multilateral Aid Czech multilateral ODA disbursements (Graph 5) have followed a similar pattern as total ODA (Graph 1 p10) Multilateral ODA remained rather constant between the years 2000 ndash 2003 Starting in 2004 a dramatic increase occurred I have attributed this growth to entry into the EU in section IV1 This explanation is further reinforced when looking at the specific recipients of multilateral aid The European Union is by far the largest recipient following the year of the countryrsquos accession into the Union The importance of other recipients is decreasing or remains constant as in the case of the UN

13

Graph 5 Czech Republic Multilateral ODA Disbursements

Czech Republic Multilateral ODA Disbursements

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Year

UnspecifiedEC

UN

V Preliminary Conclusion When relating the findings to the theoretical framework outlined in the introductory sections the following conclusions can be made First the case of the Czech Republic suggests that the onset of aid giving has primarily been driven by the international arena Intergovernmental and overseas governmental organizations provided the financial support necessary for capacity building They have also offered substantial transfer of foreign aid know-how Domestic actors such as political parties or non- governmental sector have not played a major role at this stage

Second evidence for the Czech Republic Hungary Poland and Slovakia reveals that the EU an international actor has played a major role in determining current ODA levels Significant growth of total ODA is evident only after the EU mandated and presented it as one of many conditions for EU accession The underlying influence of the EU also manifests itself in the multilateral aid disbursements of the Czech Republic where the vast majority of the funds go to the European Union budget

Third several trends show up when analyzing bilateral allocations For the Czech Republic Hungary Poland and Slovakia post-Yugoslavian nations have been primary recipients of foreign aid Pragmatism rather than altruism derived from recipient need is probably behind this pattern Geographical proximity cultural similarity and a shared experience of a communist past are factors potentially leading to effectiveness in aid allocations The case of the Czech Republic suggests that the non-governmental sector played a constitutive role in prioritizing former Yugoslavian countries

Starting mid-2000s the prioritizing of Afghanistan and Iraq in the Czech Hungarian and Slovak aid disbursements implies that the donors seek to strengthen their political coalition with Western powers Yet donor interest is combined with recipient need in the case of Afghanistan since the country is included on the list of least developed countries

Polish bilateral aid has also been strongly shaped by donor interest but one of a different nature As the country focuses on Kazakhstan natural resources endowed country with rapidly growing GNI economic interest is paramount

Lastly Slovak focus on Sudan in the last couple of years could represent a genuine altruistic response to recipient needs as Sudan belongs to the group of least developed countries (UN World Bank 2006) However it is too soon to conclude if allocations to Sudan form a long-term pattern or is they are merely isolated events without a solid institutional anchor

14

Overall donorsrsquo interest prevails over recipient need when analyzing bilateral allocations Yet different interests motivate the direction of bilateral disbursements Evidence suggests that political and economic motivations are the most frequent ones Recipient need is being reflected primarily when combined with donor interest Isolated instances of altruism occur sporadically

15

Appendix 1 Tables 1 ndash 4 Total Bilateral and Multilateral ODA

Donor Czech Republic Amount Constant Prices (2006 $ millions) Type of flow Net Disbursements Year 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Type of aid ODA 2769 2642 3173 4881 7004 11896 12419 14492 16086 15504 ODAGNI 003 003 003 005 007 011 011 011 012 011 Bilateral ODA 1006 1185 1249 2753 4832 10558 7288 6906 777 7377 Multilateral ODA 1763 1457 1924 2128 2173 1339 5131 7587 8316 8127

UN Agencies 1034 698 634 477 524 57 EC 3854 6619 6874 7167

Unspecified 1924 2128 1139 641 643 491 918 39

Donor Hungary Amount Constant Prices (2006 $ millions) Type of flow Net Disbursements Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Type of aid ODA 2501 716 9866 14949 7487 ODAGNI 003 007 011 014 007 Bilateral ODA 1637 3623 3889 8434 2813 Multilateral ODA 866 3536 5978 6515 4674

16

Donor Poland Amount Constant Prices (2006 $ millions) Type of flow Net Disbursements Year 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Type of aid ODA 2758 3208 4646 5226 2041 3693 14399 21656 29679 30628 ODAGNI 001 001 002 002 NA 001 005 007 009 009 Bilateral ODA 2012 2313 2104 4515 1273 2576 305 5072 11899 12426 Multilateral ODA 745 895 2541 711 769 1118 11349 16584 1778 18202

UN Agencies 966 398 EC 9376 1707

Unspecified 1007 16584 1778 734

Donor Slovak Republic Amount Constant Prices (2006 $ millions) Type of flow Net Disbursements Year 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Type of aid ODA 1445 1172 1648 1192 2084 3227 6032 5511 5546 ODAGNI 004 003 004 002 005 007 012 01 009 Bilateral ODA 805 342 675 664 1177 1229 3301 2475 2265 Multilateral ODA 64 83 973 528 905 1997 273 3036 3281

Appendix 2 Tables 1 ndash 4 Top 3 Recipients of Bilateral ODA Donor Czech Republic Amount Constant Prices (2006) $ million Type of flow ODA net disbursements

Year Country $ million 1998 1 Palestinian-Administered Territory 166

2 Vietnam 070 3 Bosnia-Herzegovina 053 Former Yugoslavia (total) 102

1999 1 Palestinian-Administered Territory 150

2 China 066 3 Bosnia-Herzegovina 055 Former Yugoslavia (total) 139

2000 1 Palestinian-Administered Territory 169 2 Mongolia 094 3 Bosnia-Herzegovina 092 Former Yugoslavia (total) 145

2001 1 Serbia 518 2 Vietnam 177 3 India 197 4 Moldova 171 Former Yugoslavia (total) 829

2002 1 Former Yugoslavia (total) 1100 2 India 221 3 Georgia 153 Former Yugoslavia (total) 1290

2003 1 Iraq 5250 2 Afghanistan 804 3 Serbia amp Montenegro 545 Former Yugoslavia (total) 1440

2004 1 Iraq 1568 2 Serbia amp Montenegro 790 3 Afghanistan 698 Former Yugoslavia (total) 1090

2005 1 Iraq 872 2 Serbia amp Montenegro 689 3 Ukraine 495 Former Yugoslavia (total) 1050

18

18

Donor Czech Republic Amount Constant Prices (2006) $ million Type of flow ODA net disbursements

Year Country $ million 2006 1 Iraq 118

2 Serbia 6 3 Afghanistan 42 Former Yugoslavia (total) 106

Donor Hungary Amount Constant Prices (2006) $ million Type of flow ODA net disbursements

Year Country $ million 2003 1 Serbia 305

2 Vietnam 052 3 Croatia 054 Former Yugoslavia (total) 55

2004 1 Bosnia-Herzegovina 1920 2 Serbia 332 3 Iraq 181 4 Afghanistan 166 Former Yugoslavia (total) 2314

2005 1 Serbia 1012 2 Yemen 986 3 Tanzania 941 Former Yugoslavia (total) 1023

2006 1 Iraq 6715 2 Afghanistan 039 3 Vietnam 031

Former Yugoslavia (total) 059

Donor Poland Amount Constant Prices (2006) $ million Type of flow ODA net disbursements

Year Country $ million 1998 1 Bosnia-Herzegovina 373

2 Vietnam 326 3 Kazakhstan 214 Former Yugoslavia (total) 419

19

19

Donor Poland Amount Constant Prices (2006) $ million Type of flow ODA net disbursements

Year Country $ million 1999 1 Bosnia-Herzegovina 355

2 Macedonia 282 3 Kazakhstan 234 Former Yugoslavia (total) 897

2000 1 Argentina 519 2 Kazakhstan 316 3 Vietnam 164 Former Yugoslavia (total) 174

2001 1 Yemen 347 2 Kazakhstan 256 3 Vietnam 232 Former Yugoslavia (total) 114

2002 1 China 528 2 Kazakhstan 24 3 Vietnam 044 Former Yugoslavia (total) 092

2003 1 Serbia 152 2 Kazakhstan 24 3 China 202 Former Yugoslavia (total) 157

2004 1 Ethiopia 107 2 Serbia 997 3 China 19 4 Kazakhstan 162 Former Yugoslavia (total) 104

2005 1 Serbia 198 2 Ukraine 651 3 Uzbekistan 63 Former Yugoslavia (total) 204

2006 1 Angola 924 2 Ukraine 651 3 Belarus 677 Former Yugoslavia (total) 175

20

20

Donor Slovak Republic Amount Constant Prices (2006) $ million Type of flow ODA net disbursements

Year $ million 2002 1 Former Yugoslavia (total) 083

2 Sudan 018 3 Kenya 016

2003 1 Former Yugoslavia (total) 307 2 Iraq 113 3 Kenya 039

2004 1 Former Yugoslavia (total) 364 2 Hong Kong China 158 3 Georgia 054 4 Afghanistan 043

2005 1 Sudan 1857 2 Afghanistan 474 3 Former Yugoslavia (total) 408

2006 1 Sudan 1498 2 Afghanistan 154 3 Mongolia 064

21

21

Reference Alesina A amp Dollar D (2000) Who Gives Foreign Aid to Whom and Why Journal of

Economic Growth 5 33-63 Bearce D H amp Tirone D C (2007) Foreign Aid Recipient Growth and the Strategic Goals

of Donor Governments manuscript for APSA 2007 Bertheacutelemy J-C amp Tichit A (2004) Bilateral donors aid allocations decisions - a three-

dimensional panel analysis International Review of Economics and Finance Caritas (2006) Vyrocni zprava 2005 Praha Ceska katolicka charita CEC (2006) Communication for the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament

Financing for Development and Aid Effectiveness ndash The challenges of scaling up EU aid 2006 ndash 2008

Granell F (2005) Can the Fifth Enlargement Weaken the EUs Development Cooperation Jean MonnetRobert Schuman Paper Series 5(24 August)

Isenman P (1976) Biases in Aid Allocations Against Poorer and Larger Countries World Development 44 631-641 King M Exnerova V Blazek O Eds (2006) Annual Report 2005 Prague People In Need

Lancaster C (2007) Foreign Aid Chicago and London The University of Chicago Press Maizels A amp Nissanke M K (1984) Motivations for Aid to Developing Countries World

Development 12(9) 870-900 Malkin B amp agencies (2006) Poland to Send More Troops to Afghanistan Guardian

Unlimited September 14 Retrieved 2202008 from wwwguardiancoukafghanistanstory0187212500html

McKinlay R D amp Little R (1977) A Foreign Policy Model of US Bilateral Aid Allocations World Politics 30 58-86

McKinlay R D amp Little R (1978i) The French Aid Relationship A Foreign Policy Model of the Disribution of French Bilateral Aid 1964-1970 Development and Change 9 459-478

McKinlay R D amp Little R (1978ii) A Foreign-Policy Model of the Distribution of British Billateral Aid1960-1970 British Journal of Political Science 8 313-331

McKinlay R D amp Little R (1978iii) The German Aid Relationship A Test of the Recipient Need and the Donor Interest 1960-1970 European Journal of Political Research 6 235-257

McKinlay R D amp Little R (1979) The US Aid Relationship A Test of the Recipient Need and the Donor Interest Model Political Studies 27 236-250

McNamara S (2007) ldquoThe PolishndashAmerican Relationship Deepening and Strengthening the Alliancerdquo Backgrounder 2010 February 27 1-13

Migliorisi S (2003) The Consequences of Enlargement for Development Policy (a report for European Commission)

Moravcsik A amp Vaduchova A M (2003) National Interest State Power and EU Enlargement East European Politics and Societies 17(1) 42-57

Morgenthau H (1962) A Political Theory of Foreign Aid The American Political Science Review 56(2) 301-309

Neumayer E (2003) The Pattern of Aid Giving London and New York Routledge OECD (2008) Glossary of Statistical Terms Retrieved 5282008 from

httpstatsoecdorgglossarydetailaspID=1176 OECD (2008) Development Cooperation Report 2007 (Summary) OECD-DAC (2007) DACs Glossary Retrieved 2202008 from

Schraeder P J Hook S W amp Taylor B (1998) ldquoClarifying the Foreign Aid Puzzle A

httpwwwoecdorgglossary02586en_2649_33721_1965693_1_1_1_100html1965586

22

22

Comparison of American Japanese French and Swedish Aid Flowsrdquo World Politics 50(2) 294-323

Snyder J (2004) One World Rival Theories Foreign Policy (NovDec) 52-62 Theacuterien J-P amp Noeumll A (2000) ldquoPolitical Parties and Foreign Aidrdquo American Political Science

Review 94 (March)(1) 151-162 UNDP (2008) The Human Development Report 20072008 Technical Note UN World Bank (2006) Measuring Progress in Least Developed Countries a statistical profile Waltz K (1979) Theory of International Politics New York Random House

  • R Schuman
    • Vol 5 No 19
    • December 2008
      • Introduction
      • This research aims to contribute to understanding why countries give foreign aid It focuses on the new donors of Central-Eastern Europe (the Czech Republic Hungary Poland and Slovakia) and the Baltic states (Estonia Latvia Lithuania) These cou

12

administrators to become experts in foreign aid and also were the force behind the origin of new institutional capacities which are now concentrated in the Czech Development Agency and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Bilateral Aid I have identified the states from the former Yugoslavia as the biggest recipients of Czech ODA In this section I claim that the Czech government has consistently been engaged in these countries because of pressure from domestic NGOrsquos

People in Need (PIN) is by far the largest non-governmental organization providing relief aid and development assistance in the Czech Republic It is one of the largest organizations of its kind in post-communist Europe and has administered projects in thirty-seven countries over the past fourteen years The annual budget of PIN in 2005 was 109 million EURO ($ 137 million) (King Exnerova Blazek eds 2006)

PIN began in 1992 when dissidents and leaders of the Czechoslovak Velvet Revolution teamed with conflict journalists working for the Czech Public Service Television They aimed to provide humanitarian aid to the civil war torn region of Nagorno-Karabakh (former USSR) Since then the activities of the organization have proliferated Although the organization works in fourteen countries in Asia Europe and Africa the main focus of its work has remained in the countries of the former Soviet Union or the former Soviet bloc The organization has been primarily involved in Ukraine Moldova and Tajikistan Throughout the nineties it provided robust assistance during the humanitarian interventions in the war-torn countries of the former Yugoslavia and later during the reconstruction of these areas According to PINrsquos long-term plan the organization would like to further contribute to the reconstruction of the countries of the former Yugoslavia The cultural similarities between the Czech Republic and the region of the Balkan should facilitate such assistance

Caritas is another organization working in the field of foreign humanitarian and development assistance Because the main objective of the organization is provision of social services in the Czech Republic the magnitude of its foreign projects is limited In 2005 the resources allocated to the activities abroad reached $ 16 million which was approximately one tenth of PINrsquos budget (Caritas 2006) Throughout the nineties the organization worked in Chechnya Georgia Ukraine Moldova and the countries of the Balkan which have received priority throughout the 1990s and in the beginning of the 21st century

Both organizations started their activities in former USSR countries and in the Balkan prior to the intensification of governmental flows into these countries The projects were primarily funded by donations or through multilateral agencies Later on governmental funding played a substantial role It is reasonable to expect that this change has occurred due to pressure from these organizations The government might have been easily willing to accommodate the NGOs as their experience in the regions ensured the quality and sustainability of projects Multilateral Aid Czech multilateral ODA disbursements (Graph 5) have followed a similar pattern as total ODA (Graph 1 p10) Multilateral ODA remained rather constant between the years 2000 ndash 2003 Starting in 2004 a dramatic increase occurred I have attributed this growth to entry into the EU in section IV1 This explanation is further reinforced when looking at the specific recipients of multilateral aid The European Union is by far the largest recipient following the year of the countryrsquos accession into the Union The importance of other recipients is decreasing or remains constant as in the case of the UN

13

Graph 5 Czech Republic Multilateral ODA Disbursements

Czech Republic Multilateral ODA Disbursements

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Year

UnspecifiedEC

UN

V Preliminary Conclusion When relating the findings to the theoretical framework outlined in the introductory sections the following conclusions can be made First the case of the Czech Republic suggests that the onset of aid giving has primarily been driven by the international arena Intergovernmental and overseas governmental organizations provided the financial support necessary for capacity building They have also offered substantial transfer of foreign aid know-how Domestic actors such as political parties or non- governmental sector have not played a major role at this stage

Second evidence for the Czech Republic Hungary Poland and Slovakia reveals that the EU an international actor has played a major role in determining current ODA levels Significant growth of total ODA is evident only after the EU mandated and presented it as one of many conditions for EU accession The underlying influence of the EU also manifests itself in the multilateral aid disbursements of the Czech Republic where the vast majority of the funds go to the European Union budget

Third several trends show up when analyzing bilateral allocations For the Czech Republic Hungary Poland and Slovakia post-Yugoslavian nations have been primary recipients of foreign aid Pragmatism rather than altruism derived from recipient need is probably behind this pattern Geographical proximity cultural similarity and a shared experience of a communist past are factors potentially leading to effectiveness in aid allocations The case of the Czech Republic suggests that the non-governmental sector played a constitutive role in prioritizing former Yugoslavian countries

Starting mid-2000s the prioritizing of Afghanistan and Iraq in the Czech Hungarian and Slovak aid disbursements implies that the donors seek to strengthen their political coalition with Western powers Yet donor interest is combined with recipient need in the case of Afghanistan since the country is included on the list of least developed countries

Polish bilateral aid has also been strongly shaped by donor interest but one of a different nature As the country focuses on Kazakhstan natural resources endowed country with rapidly growing GNI economic interest is paramount

Lastly Slovak focus on Sudan in the last couple of years could represent a genuine altruistic response to recipient needs as Sudan belongs to the group of least developed countries (UN World Bank 2006) However it is too soon to conclude if allocations to Sudan form a long-term pattern or is they are merely isolated events without a solid institutional anchor

14

Overall donorsrsquo interest prevails over recipient need when analyzing bilateral allocations Yet different interests motivate the direction of bilateral disbursements Evidence suggests that political and economic motivations are the most frequent ones Recipient need is being reflected primarily when combined with donor interest Isolated instances of altruism occur sporadically

15

Appendix 1 Tables 1 ndash 4 Total Bilateral and Multilateral ODA

Donor Czech Republic Amount Constant Prices (2006 $ millions) Type of flow Net Disbursements Year 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Type of aid ODA 2769 2642 3173 4881 7004 11896 12419 14492 16086 15504 ODAGNI 003 003 003 005 007 011 011 011 012 011 Bilateral ODA 1006 1185 1249 2753 4832 10558 7288 6906 777 7377 Multilateral ODA 1763 1457 1924 2128 2173 1339 5131 7587 8316 8127

UN Agencies 1034 698 634 477 524 57 EC 3854 6619 6874 7167

Unspecified 1924 2128 1139 641 643 491 918 39

Donor Hungary Amount Constant Prices (2006 $ millions) Type of flow Net Disbursements Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Type of aid ODA 2501 716 9866 14949 7487 ODAGNI 003 007 011 014 007 Bilateral ODA 1637 3623 3889 8434 2813 Multilateral ODA 866 3536 5978 6515 4674

16

Donor Poland Amount Constant Prices (2006 $ millions) Type of flow Net Disbursements Year 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Type of aid ODA 2758 3208 4646 5226 2041 3693 14399 21656 29679 30628 ODAGNI 001 001 002 002 NA 001 005 007 009 009 Bilateral ODA 2012 2313 2104 4515 1273 2576 305 5072 11899 12426 Multilateral ODA 745 895 2541 711 769 1118 11349 16584 1778 18202

UN Agencies 966 398 EC 9376 1707

Unspecified 1007 16584 1778 734

Donor Slovak Republic Amount Constant Prices (2006 $ millions) Type of flow Net Disbursements Year 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Type of aid ODA 1445 1172 1648 1192 2084 3227 6032 5511 5546 ODAGNI 004 003 004 002 005 007 012 01 009 Bilateral ODA 805 342 675 664 1177 1229 3301 2475 2265 Multilateral ODA 64 83 973 528 905 1997 273 3036 3281

Appendix 2 Tables 1 ndash 4 Top 3 Recipients of Bilateral ODA Donor Czech Republic Amount Constant Prices (2006) $ million Type of flow ODA net disbursements

Year Country $ million 1998 1 Palestinian-Administered Territory 166

2 Vietnam 070 3 Bosnia-Herzegovina 053 Former Yugoslavia (total) 102

1999 1 Palestinian-Administered Territory 150

2 China 066 3 Bosnia-Herzegovina 055 Former Yugoslavia (total) 139

2000 1 Palestinian-Administered Territory 169 2 Mongolia 094 3 Bosnia-Herzegovina 092 Former Yugoslavia (total) 145

2001 1 Serbia 518 2 Vietnam 177 3 India 197 4 Moldova 171 Former Yugoslavia (total) 829

2002 1 Former Yugoslavia (total) 1100 2 India 221 3 Georgia 153 Former Yugoslavia (total) 1290

2003 1 Iraq 5250 2 Afghanistan 804 3 Serbia amp Montenegro 545 Former Yugoslavia (total) 1440

2004 1 Iraq 1568 2 Serbia amp Montenegro 790 3 Afghanistan 698 Former Yugoslavia (total) 1090

2005 1 Iraq 872 2 Serbia amp Montenegro 689 3 Ukraine 495 Former Yugoslavia (total) 1050

18

18

Donor Czech Republic Amount Constant Prices (2006) $ million Type of flow ODA net disbursements

Year Country $ million 2006 1 Iraq 118

2 Serbia 6 3 Afghanistan 42 Former Yugoslavia (total) 106

Donor Hungary Amount Constant Prices (2006) $ million Type of flow ODA net disbursements

Year Country $ million 2003 1 Serbia 305

2 Vietnam 052 3 Croatia 054 Former Yugoslavia (total) 55

2004 1 Bosnia-Herzegovina 1920 2 Serbia 332 3 Iraq 181 4 Afghanistan 166 Former Yugoslavia (total) 2314

2005 1 Serbia 1012 2 Yemen 986 3 Tanzania 941 Former Yugoslavia (total) 1023

2006 1 Iraq 6715 2 Afghanistan 039 3 Vietnam 031

Former Yugoslavia (total) 059

Donor Poland Amount Constant Prices (2006) $ million Type of flow ODA net disbursements

Year Country $ million 1998 1 Bosnia-Herzegovina 373

2 Vietnam 326 3 Kazakhstan 214 Former Yugoslavia (total) 419

19

19

Donor Poland Amount Constant Prices (2006) $ million Type of flow ODA net disbursements

Year Country $ million 1999 1 Bosnia-Herzegovina 355

2 Macedonia 282 3 Kazakhstan 234 Former Yugoslavia (total) 897

2000 1 Argentina 519 2 Kazakhstan 316 3 Vietnam 164 Former Yugoslavia (total) 174

2001 1 Yemen 347 2 Kazakhstan 256 3 Vietnam 232 Former Yugoslavia (total) 114

2002 1 China 528 2 Kazakhstan 24 3 Vietnam 044 Former Yugoslavia (total) 092

2003 1 Serbia 152 2 Kazakhstan 24 3 China 202 Former Yugoslavia (total) 157

2004 1 Ethiopia 107 2 Serbia 997 3 China 19 4 Kazakhstan 162 Former Yugoslavia (total) 104

2005 1 Serbia 198 2 Ukraine 651 3 Uzbekistan 63 Former Yugoslavia (total) 204

2006 1 Angola 924 2 Ukraine 651 3 Belarus 677 Former Yugoslavia (total) 175

20

20

Donor Slovak Republic Amount Constant Prices (2006) $ million Type of flow ODA net disbursements

Year $ million 2002 1 Former Yugoslavia (total) 083

2 Sudan 018 3 Kenya 016

2003 1 Former Yugoslavia (total) 307 2 Iraq 113 3 Kenya 039

2004 1 Former Yugoslavia (total) 364 2 Hong Kong China 158 3 Georgia 054 4 Afghanistan 043

2005 1 Sudan 1857 2 Afghanistan 474 3 Former Yugoslavia (total) 408

2006 1 Sudan 1498 2 Afghanistan 154 3 Mongolia 064

21

21

Reference Alesina A amp Dollar D (2000) Who Gives Foreign Aid to Whom and Why Journal of

Economic Growth 5 33-63 Bearce D H amp Tirone D C (2007) Foreign Aid Recipient Growth and the Strategic Goals

of Donor Governments manuscript for APSA 2007 Bertheacutelemy J-C amp Tichit A (2004) Bilateral donors aid allocations decisions - a three-

dimensional panel analysis International Review of Economics and Finance Caritas (2006) Vyrocni zprava 2005 Praha Ceska katolicka charita CEC (2006) Communication for the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament

Financing for Development and Aid Effectiveness ndash The challenges of scaling up EU aid 2006 ndash 2008

Granell F (2005) Can the Fifth Enlargement Weaken the EUs Development Cooperation Jean MonnetRobert Schuman Paper Series 5(24 August)

Isenman P (1976) Biases in Aid Allocations Against Poorer and Larger Countries World Development 44 631-641 King M Exnerova V Blazek O Eds (2006) Annual Report 2005 Prague People In Need

Lancaster C (2007) Foreign Aid Chicago and London The University of Chicago Press Maizels A amp Nissanke M K (1984) Motivations for Aid to Developing Countries World

Development 12(9) 870-900 Malkin B amp agencies (2006) Poland to Send More Troops to Afghanistan Guardian

Unlimited September 14 Retrieved 2202008 from wwwguardiancoukafghanistanstory0187212500html

McKinlay R D amp Little R (1977) A Foreign Policy Model of US Bilateral Aid Allocations World Politics 30 58-86

McKinlay R D amp Little R (1978i) The French Aid Relationship A Foreign Policy Model of the Disribution of French Bilateral Aid 1964-1970 Development and Change 9 459-478

McKinlay R D amp Little R (1978ii) A Foreign-Policy Model of the Distribution of British Billateral Aid1960-1970 British Journal of Political Science 8 313-331

McKinlay R D amp Little R (1978iii) The German Aid Relationship A Test of the Recipient Need and the Donor Interest 1960-1970 European Journal of Political Research 6 235-257

McKinlay R D amp Little R (1979) The US Aid Relationship A Test of the Recipient Need and the Donor Interest Model Political Studies 27 236-250

McNamara S (2007) ldquoThe PolishndashAmerican Relationship Deepening and Strengthening the Alliancerdquo Backgrounder 2010 February 27 1-13

Migliorisi S (2003) The Consequences of Enlargement for Development Policy (a report for European Commission)

Moravcsik A amp Vaduchova A M (2003) National Interest State Power and EU Enlargement East European Politics and Societies 17(1) 42-57

Morgenthau H (1962) A Political Theory of Foreign Aid The American Political Science Review 56(2) 301-309

Neumayer E (2003) The Pattern of Aid Giving London and New York Routledge OECD (2008) Glossary of Statistical Terms Retrieved 5282008 from

httpstatsoecdorgglossarydetailaspID=1176 OECD (2008) Development Cooperation Report 2007 (Summary) OECD-DAC (2007) DACs Glossary Retrieved 2202008 from

Schraeder P J Hook S W amp Taylor B (1998) ldquoClarifying the Foreign Aid Puzzle A

httpwwwoecdorgglossary02586en_2649_33721_1965693_1_1_1_100html1965586

22

22

Comparison of American Japanese French and Swedish Aid Flowsrdquo World Politics 50(2) 294-323

Snyder J (2004) One World Rival Theories Foreign Policy (NovDec) 52-62 Theacuterien J-P amp Noeumll A (2000) ldquoPolitical Parties and Foreign Aidrdquo American Political Science

Review 94 (March)(1) 151-162 UNDP (2008) The Human Development Report 20072008 Technical Note UN World Bank (2006) Measuring Progress in Least Developed Countries a statistical profile Waltz K (1979) Theory of International Politics New York Random House

  • R Schuman
    • Vol 5 No 19
    • December 2008
      • Introduction
      • This research aims to contribute to understanding why countries give foreign aid It focuses on the new donors of Central-Eastern Europe (the Czech Republic Hungary Poland and Slovakia) and the Baltic states (Estonia Latvia Lithuania) These cou

13

Graph 5 Czech Republic Multilateral ODA Disbursements

Czech Republic Multilateral ODA Disbursements

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Year

UnspecifiedEC

UN

V Preliminary Conclusion When relating the findings to the theoretical framework outlined in the introductory sections the following conclusions can be made First the case of the Czech Republic suggests that the onset of aid giving has primarily been driven by the international arena Intergovernmental and overseas governmental organizations provided the financial support necessary for capacity building They have also offered substantial transfer of foreign aid know-how Domestic actors such as political parties or non- governmental sector have not played a major role at this stage

Second evidence for the Czech Republic Hungary Poland and Slovakia reveals that the EU an international actor has played a major role in determining current ODA levels Significant growth of total ODA is evident only after the EU mandated and presented it as one of many conditions for EU accession The underlying influence of the EU also manifests itself in the multilateral aid disbursements of the Czech Republic where the vast majority of the funds go to the European Union budget

Third several trends show up when analyzing bilateral allocations For the Czech Republic Hungary Poland and Slovakia post-Yugoslavian nations have been primary recipients of foreign aid Pragmatism rather than altruism derived from recipient need is probably behind this pattern Geographical proximity cultural similarity and a shared experience of a communist past are factors potentially leading to effectiveness in aid allocations The case of the Czech Republic suggests that the non-governmental sector played a constitutive role in prioritizing former Yugoslavian countries

Starting mid-2000s the prioritizing of Afghanistan and Iraq in the Czech Hungarian and Slovak aid disbursements implies that the donors seek to strengthen their political coalition with Western powers Yet donor interest is combined with recipient need in the case of Afghanistan since the country is included on the list of least developed countries

Polish bilateral aid has also been strongly shaped by donor interest but one of a different nature As the country focuses on Kazakhstan natural resources endowed country with rapidly growing GNI economic interest is paramount

Lastly Slovak focus on Sudan in the last couple of years could represent a genuine altruistic response to recipient needs as Sudan belongs to the group of least developed countries (UN World Bank 2006) However it is too soon to conclude if allocations to Sudan form a long-term pattern or is they are merely isolated events without a solid institutional anchor

14

Overall donorsrsquo interest prevails over recipient need when analyzing bilateral allocations Yet different interests motivate the direction of bilateral disbursements Evidence suggests that political and economic motivations are the most frequent ones Recipient need is being reflected primarily when combined with donor interest Isolated instances of altruism occur sporadically

15

Appendix 1 Tables 1 ndash 4 Total Bilateral and Multilateral ODA

Donor Czech Republic Amount Constant Prices (2006 $ millions) Type of flow Net Disbursements Year 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Type of aid ODA 2769 2642 3173 4881 7004 11896 12419 14492 16086 15504 ODAGNI 003 003 003 005 007 011 011 011 012 011 Bilateral ODA 1006 1185 1249 2753 4832 10558 7288 6906 777 7377 Multilateral ODA 1763 1457 1924 2128 2173 1339 5131 7587 8316 8127

UN Agencies 1034 698 634 477 524 57 EC 3854 6619 6874 7167

Unspecified 1924 2128 1139 641 643 491 918 39

Donor Hungary Amount Constant Prices (2006 $ millions) Type of flow Net Disbursements Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Type of aid ODA 2501 716 9866 14949 7487 ODAGNI 003 007 011 014 007 Bilateral ODA 1637 3623 3889 8434 2813 Multilateral ODA 866 3536 5978 6515 4674

16

Donor Poland Amount Constant Prices (2006 $ millions) Type of flow Net Disbursements Year 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Type of aid ODA 2758 3208 4646 5226 2041 3693 14399 21656 29679 30628 ODAGNI 001 001 002 002 NA 001 005 007 009 009 Bilateral ODA 2012 2313 2104 4515 1273 2576 305 5072 11899 12426 Multilateral ODA 745 895 2541 711 769 1118 11349 16584 1778 18202

UN Agencies 966 398 EC 9376 1707

Unspecified 1007 16584 1778 734

Donor Slovak Republic Amount Constant Prices (2006 $ millions) Type of flow Net Disbursements Year 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Type of aid ODA 1445 1172 1648 1192 2084 3227 6032 5511 5546 ODAGNI 004 003 004 002 005 007 012 01 009 Bilateral ODA 805 342 675 664 1177 1229 3301 2475 2265 Multilateral ODA 64 83 973 528 905 1997 273 3036 3281

Appendix 2 Tables 1 ndash 4 Top 3 Recipients of Bilateral ODA Donor Czech Republic Amount Constant Prices (2006) $ million Type of flow ODA net disbursements

Year Country $ million 1998 1 Palestinian-Administered Territory 166

2 Vietnam 070 3 Bosnia-Herzegovina 053 Former Yugoslavia (total) 102

1999 1 Palestinian-Administered Territory 150

2 China 066 3 Bosnia-Herzegovina 055 Former Yugoslavia (total) 139

2000 1 Palestinian-Administered Territory 169 2 Mongolia 094 3 Bosnia-Herzegovina 092 Former Yugoslavia (total) 145

2001 1 Serbia 518 2 Vietnam 177 3 India 197 4 Moldova 171 Former Yugoslavia (total) 829

2002 1 Former Yugoslavia (total) 1100 2 India 221 3 Georgia 153 Former Yugoslavia (total) 1290

2003 1 Iraq 5250 2 Afghanistan 804 3 Serbia amp Montenegro 545 Former Yugoslavia (total) 1440

2004 1 Iraq 1568 2 Serbia amp Montenegro 790 3 Afghanistan 698 Former Yugoslavia (total) 1090

2005 1 Iraq 872 2 Serbia amp Montenegro 689 3 Ukraine 495 Former Yugoslavia (total) 1050

18

18

Donor Czech Republic Amount Constant Prices (2006) $ million Type of flow ODA net disbursements

Year Country $ million 2006 1 Iraq 118

2 Serbia 6 3 Afghanistan 42 Former Yugoslavia (total) 106

Donor Hungary Amount Constant Prices (2006) $ million Type of flow ODA net disbursements

Year Country $ million 2003 1 Serbia 305

2 Vietnam 052 3 Croatia 054 Former Yugoslavia (total) 55

2004 1 Bosnia-Herzegovina 1920 2 Serbia 332 3 Iraq 181 4 Afghanistan 166 Former Yugoslavia (total) 2314

2005 1 Serbia 1012 2 Yemen 986 3 Tanzania 941 Former Yugoslavia (total) 1023

2006 1 Iraq 6715 2 Afghanistan 039 3 Vietnam 031

Former Yugoslavia (total) 059

Donor Poland Amount Constant Prices (2006) $ million Type of flow ODA net disbursements

Year Country $ million 1998 1 Bosnia-Herzegovina 373

2 Vietnam 326 3 Kazakhstan 214 Former Yugoslavia (total) 419

19

19

Donor Poland Amount Constant Prices (2006) $ million Type of flow ODA net disbursements

Year Country $ million 1999 1 Bosnia-Herzegovina 355

2 Macedonia 282 3 Kazakhstan 234 Former Yugoslavia (total) 897

2000 1 Argentina 519 2 Kazakhstan 316 3 Vietnam 164 Former Yugoslavia (total) 174

2001 1 Yemen 347 2 Kazakhstan 256 3 Vietnam 232 Former Yugoslavia (total) 114

2002 1 China 528 2 Kazakhstan 24 3 Vietnam 044 Former Yugoslavia (total) 092

2003 1 Serbia 152 2 Kazakhstan 24 3 China 202 Former Yugoslavia (total) 157

2004 1 Ethiopia 107 2 Serbia 997 3 China 19 4 Kazakhstan 162 Former Yugoslavia (total) 104

2005 1 Serbia 198 2 Ukraine 651 3 Uzbekistan 63 Former Yugoslavia (total) 204

2006 1 Angola 924 2 Ukraine 651 3 Belarus 677 Former Yugoslavia (total) 175

20

20

Donor Slovak Republic Amount Constant Prices (2006) $ million Type of flow ODA net disbursements

Year $ million 2002 1 Former Yugoslavia (total) 083

2 Sudan 018 3 Kenya 016

2003 1 Former Yugoslavia (total) 307 2 Iraq 113 3 Kenya 039

2004 1 Former Yugoslavia (total) 364 2 Hong Kong China 158 3 Georgia 054 4 Afghanistan 043

2005 1 Sudan 1857 2 Afghanistan 474 3 Former Yugoslavia (total) 408

2006 1 Sudan 1498 2 Afghanistan 154 3 Mongolia 064

21

21

Reference Alesina A amp Dollar D (2000) Who Gives Foreign Aid to Whom and Why Journal of

Economic Growth 5 33-63 Bearce D H amp Tirone D C (2007) Foreign Aid Recipient Growth and the Strategic Goals

of Donor Governments manuscript for APSA 2007 Bertheacutelemy J-C amp Tichit A (2004) Bilateral donors aid allocations decisions - a three-

dimensional panel analysis International Review of Economics and Finance Caritas (2006) Vyrocni zprava 2005 Praha Ceska katolicka charita CEC (2006) Communication for the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament

Financing for Development and Aid Effectiveness ndash The challenges of scaling up EU aid 2006 ndash 2008

Granell F (2005) Can the Fifth Enlargement Weaken the EUs Development Cooperation Jean MonnetRobert Schuman Paper Series 5(24 August)

Isenman P (1976) Biases in Aid Allocations Against Poorer and Larger Countries World Development 44 631-641 King M Exnerova V Blazek O Eds (2006) Annual Report 2005 Prague People In Need

Lancaster C (2007) Foreign Aid Chicago and London The University of Chicago Press Maizels A amp Nissanke M K (1984) Motivations for Aid to Developing Countries World

Development 12(9) 870-900 Malkin B amp agencies (2006) Poland to Send More Troops to Afghanistan Guardian

Unlimited September 14 Retrieved 2202008 from wwwguardiancoukafghanistanstory0187212500html

McKinlay R D amp Little R (1977) A Foreign Policy Model of US Bilateral Aid Allocations World Politics 30 58-86

McKinlay R D amp Little R (1978i) The French Aid Relationship A Foreign Policy Model of the Disribution of French Bilateral Aid 1964-1970 Development and Change 9 459-478

McKinlay R D amp Little R (1978ii) A Foreign-Policy Model of the Distribution of British Billateral Aid1960-1970 British Journal of Political Science 8 313-331

McKinlay R D amp Little R (1978iii) The German Aid Relationship A Test of the Recipient Need and the Donor Interest 1960-1970 European Journal of Political Research 6 235-257

McKinlay R D amp Little R (1979) The US Aid Relationship A Test of the Recipient Need and the Donor Interest Model Political Studies 27 236-250

McNamara S (2007) ldquoThe PolishndashAmerican Relationship Deepening and Strengthening the Alliancerdquo Backgrounder 2010 February 27 1-13

Migliorisi S (2003) The Consequences of Enlargement for Development Policy (a report for European Commission)

Moravcsik A amp Vaduchova A M (2003) National Interest State Power and EU Enlargement East European Politics and Societies 17(1) 42-57

Morgenthau H (1962) A Political Theory of Foreign Aid The American Political Science Review 56(2) 301-309

Neumayer E (2003) The Pattern of Aid Giving London and New York Routledge OECD (2008) Glossary of Statistical Terms Retrieved 5282008 from

httpstatsoecdorgglossarydetailaspID=1176 OECD (2008) Development Cooperation Report 2007 (Summary) OECD-DAC (2007) DACs Glossary Retrieved 2202008 from

Schraeder P J Hook S W amp Taylor B (1998) ldquoClarifying the Foreign Aid Puzzle A

httpwwwoecdorgglossary02586en_2649_33721_1965693_1_1_1_100html1965586

22

22

Comparison of American Japanese French and Swedish Aid Flowsrdquo World Politics 50(2) 294-323

Snyder J (2004) One World Rival Theories Foreign Policy (NovDec) 52-62 Theacuterien J-P amp Noeumll A (2000) ldquoPolitical Parties and Foreign Aidrdquo American Political Science

Review 94 (March)(1) 151-162 UNDP (2008) The Human Development Report 20072008 Technical Note UN World Bank (2006) Measuring Progress in Least Developed Countries a statistical profile Waltz K (1979) Theory of International Politics New York Random House

  • R Schuman
    • Vol 5 No 19
    • December 2008
      • Introduction
      • This research aims to contribute to understanding why countries give foreign aid It focuses on the new donors of Central-Eastern Europe (the Czech Republic Hungary Poland and Slovakia) and the Baltic states (Estonia Latvia Lithuania) These cou

14

Overall donorsrsquo interest prevails over recipient need when analyzing bilateral allocations Yet different interests motivate the direction of bilateral disbursements Evidence suggests that political and economic motivations are the most frequent ones Recipient need is being reflected primarily when combined with donor interest Isolated instances of altruism occur sporadically

15

Appendix 1 Tables 1 ndash 4 Total Bilateral and Multilateral ODA

Donor Czech Republic Amount Constant Prices (2006 $ millions) Type of flow Net Disbursements Year 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Type of aid ODA 2769 2642 3173 4881 7004 11896 12419 14492 16086 15504 ODAGNI 003 003 003 005 007 011 011 011 012 011 Bilateral ODA 1006 1185 1249 2753 4832 10558 7288 6906 777 7377 Multilateral ODA 1763 1457 1924 2128 2173 1339 5131 7587 8316 8127

UN Agencies 1034 698 634 477 524 57 EC 3854 6619 6874 7167

Unspecified 1924 2128 1139 641 643 491 918 39

Donor Hungary Amount Constant Prices (2006 $ millions) Type of flow Net Disbursements Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Type of aid ODA 2501 716 9866 14949 7487 ODAGNI 003 007 011 014 007 Bilateral ODA 1637 3623 3889 8434 2813 Multilateral ODA 866 3536 5978 6515 4674

16

Donor Poland Amount Constant Prices (2006 $ millions) Type of flow Net Disbursements Year 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Type of aid ODA 2758 3208 4646 5226 2041 3693 14399 21656 29679 30628 ODAGNI 001 001 002 002 NA 001 005 007 009 009 Bilateral ODA 2012 2313 2104 4515 1273 2576 305 5072 11899 12426 Multilateral ODA 745 895 2541 711 769 1118 11349 16584 1778 18202

UN Agencies 966 398 EC 9376 1707

Unspecified 1007 16584 1778 734

Donor Slovak Republic Amount Constant Prices (2006 $ millions) Type of flow Net Disbursements Year 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Type of aid ODA 1445 1172 1648 1192 2084 3227 6032 5511 5546 ODAGNI 004 003 004 002 005 007 012 01 009 Bilateral ODA 805 342 675 664 1177 1229 3301 2475 2265 Multilateral ODA 64 83 973 528 905 1997 273 3036 3281

Appendix 2 Tables 1 ndash 4 Top 3 Recipients of Bilateral ODA Donor Czech Republic Amount Constant Prices (2006) $ million Type of flow ODA net disbursements

Year Country $ million 1998 1 Palestinian-Administered Territory 166

2 Vietnam 070 3 Bosnia-Herzegovina 053 Former Yugoslavia (total) 102

1999 1 Palestinian-Administered Territory 150

2 China 066 3 Bosnia-Herzegovina 055 Former Yugoslavia (total) 139

2000 1 Palestinian-Administered Territory 169 2 Mongolia 094 3 Bosnia-Herzegovina 092 Former Yugoslavia (total) 145

2001 1 Serbia 518 2 Vietnam 177 3 India 197 4 Moldova 171 Former Yugoslavia (total) 829

2002 1 Former Yugoslavia (total) 1100 2 India 221 3 Georgia 153 Former Yugoslavia (total) 1290

2003 1 Iraq 5250 2 Afghanistan 804 3 Serbia amp Montenegro 545 Former Yugoslavia (total) 1440

2004 1 Iraq 1568 2 Serbia amp Montenegro 790 3 Afghanistan 698 Former Yugoslavia (total) 1090

2005 1 Iraq 872 2 Serbia amp Montenegro 689 3 Ukraine 495 Former Yugoslavia (total) 1050

18

18

Donor Czech Republic Amount Constant Prices (2006) $ million Type of flow ODA net disbursements

Year Country $ million 2006 1 Iraq 118

2 Serbia 6 3 Afghanistan 42 Former Yugoslavia (total) 106

Donor Hungary Amount Constant Prices (2006) $ million Type of flow ODA net disbursements

Year Country $ million 2003 1 Serbia 305

2 Vietnam 052 3 Croatia 054 Former Yugoslavia (total) 55

2004 1 Bosnia-Herzegovina 1920 2 Serbia 332 3 Iraq 181 4 Afghanistan 166 Former Yugoslavia (total) 2314

2005 1 Serbia 1012 2 Yemen 986 3 Tanzania 941 Former Yugoslavia (total) 1023

2006 1 Iraq 6715 2 Afghanistan 039 3 Vietnam 031

Former Yugoslavia (total) 059

Donor Poland Amount Constant Prices (2006) $ million Type of flow ODA net disbursements

Year Country $ million 1998 1 Bosnia-Herzegovina 373

2 Vietnam 326 3 Kazakhstan 214 Former Yugoslavia (total) 419

19

19

Donor Poland Amount Constant Prices (2006) $ million Type of flow ODA net disbursements

Year Country $ million 1999 1 Bosnia-Herzegovina 355

2 Macedonia 282 3 Kazakhstan 234 Former Yugoslavia (total) 897

2000 1 Argentina 519 2 Kazakhstan 316 3 Vietnam 164 Former Yugoslavia (total) 174

2001 1 Yemen 347 2 Kazakhstan 256 3 Vietnam 232 Former Yugoslavia (total) 114

2002 1 China 528 2 Kazakhstan 24 3 Vietnam 044 Former Yugoslavia (total) 092

2003 1 Serbia 152 2 Kazakhstan 24 3 China 202 Former Yugoslavia (total) 157

2004 1 Ethiopia 107 2 Serbia 997 3 China 19 4 Kazakhstan 162 Former Yugoslavia (total) 104

2005 1 Serbia 198 2 Ukraine 651 3 Uzbekistan 63 Former Yugoslavia (total) 204

2006 1 Angola 924 2 Ukraine 651 3 Belarus 677 Former Yugoslavia (total) 175

20

20

Donor Slovak Republic Amount Constant Prices (2006) $ million Type of flow ODA net disbursements

Year $ million 2002 1 Former Yugoslavia (total) 083

2 Sudan 018 3 Kenya 016

2003 1 Former Yugoslavia (total) 307 2 Iraq 113 3 Kenya 039

2004 1 Former Yugoslavia (total) 364 2 Hong Kong China 158 3 Georgia 054 4 Afghanistan 043

2005 1 Sudan 1857 2 Afghanistan 474 3 Former Yugoslavia (total) 408

2006 1 Sudan 1498 2 Afghanistan 154 3 Mongolia 064

21

21

Reference Alesina A amp Dollar D (2000) Who Gives Foreign Aid to Whom and Why Journal of

Economic Growth 5 33-63 Bearce D H amp Tirone D C (2007) Foreign Aid Recipient Growth and the Strategic Goals

of Donor Governments manuscript for APSA 2007 Bertheacutelemy J-C amp Tichit A (2004) Bilateral donors aid allocations decisions - a three-

dimensional panel analysis International Review of Economics and Finance Caritas (2006) Vyrocni zprava 2005 Praha Ceska katolicka charita CEC (2006) Communication for the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament

Financing for Development and Aid Effectiveness ndash The challenges of scaling up EU aid 2006 ndash 2008

Granell F (2005) Can the Fifth Enlargement Weaken the EUs Development Cooperation Jean MonnetRobert Schuman Paper Series 5(24 August)

Isenman P (1976) Biases in Aid Allocations Against Poorer and Larger Countries World Development 44 631-641 King M Exnerova V Blazek O Eds (2006) Annual Report 2005 Prague People In Need

Lancaster C (2007) Foreign Aid Chicago and London The University of Chicago Press Maizels A amp Nissanke M K (1984) Motivations for Aid to Developing Countries World

Development 12(9) 870-900 Malkin B amp agencies (2006) Poland to Send More Troops to Afghanistan Guardian

Unlimited September 14 Retrieved 2202008 from wwwguardiancoukafghanistanstory0187212500html

McKinlay R D amp Little R (1977) A Foreign Policy Model of US Bilateral Aid Allocations World Politics 30 58-86

McKinlay R D amp Little R (1978i) The French Aid Relationship A Foreign Policy Model of the Disribution of French Bilateral Aid 1964-1970 Development and Change 9 459-478

McKinlay R D amp Little R (1978ii) A Foreign-Policy Model of the Distribution of British Billateral Aid1960-1970 British Journal of Political Science 8 313-331

McKinlay R D amp Little R (1978iii) The German Aid Relationship A Test of the Recipient Need and the Donor Interest 1960-1970 European Journal of Political Research 6 235-257

McKinlay R D amp Little R (1979) The US Aid Relationship A Test of the Recipient Need and the Donor Interest Model Political Studies 27 236-250

McNamara S (2007) ldquoThe PolishndashAmerican Relationship Deepening and Strengthening the Alliancerdquo Backgrounder 2010 February 27 1-13

Migliorisi S (2003) The Consequences of Enlargement for Development Policy (a report for European Commission)

Moravcsik A amp Vaduchova A M (2003) National Interest State Power and EU Enlargement East European Politics and Societies 17(1) 42-57

Morgenthau H (1962) A Political Theory of Foreign Aid The American Political Science Review 56(2) 301-309

Neumayer E (2003) The Pattern of Aid Giving London and New York Routledge OECD (2008) Glossary of Statistical Terms Retrieved 5282008 from

httpstatsoecdorgglossarydetailaspID=1176 OECD (2008) Development Cooperation Report 2007 (Summary) OECD-DAC (2007) DACs Glossary Retrieved 2202008 from

Schraeder P J Hook S W amp Taylor B (1998) ldquoClarifying the Foreign Aid Puzzle A

httpwwwoecdorgglossary02586en_2649_33721_1965693_1_1_1_100html1965586

22

22

Comparison of American Japanese French and Swedish Aid Flowsrdquo World Politics 50(2) 294-323

Snyder J (2004) One World Rival Theories Foreign Policy (NovDec) 52-62 Theacuterien J-P amp Noeumll A (2000) ldquoPolitical Parties and Foreign Aidrdquo American Political Science

Review 94 (March)(1) 151-162 UNDP (2008) The Human Development Report 20072008 Technical Note UN World Bank (2006) Measuring Progress in Least Developed Countries a statistical profile Waltz K (1979) Theory of International Politics New York Random House

  • R Schuman
    • Vol 5 No 19
    • December 2008
      • Introduction
      • This research aims to contribute to understanding why countries give foreign aid It focuses on the new donors of Central-Eastern Europe (the Czech Republic Hungary Poland and Slovakia) and the Baltic states (Estonia Latvia Lithuania) These cou

15

Appendix 1 Tables 1 ndash 4 Total Bilateral and Multilateral ODA

Donor Czech Republic Amount Constant Prices (2006 $ millions) Type of flow Net Disbursements Year 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Type of aid ODA 2769 2642 3173 4881 7004 11896 12419 14492 16086 15504 ODAGNI 003 003 003 005 007 011 011 011 012 011 Bilateral ODA 1006 1185 1249 2753 4832 10558 7288 6906 777 7377 Multilateral ODA 1763 1457 1924 2128 2173 1339 5131 7587 8316 8127

UN Agencies 1034 698 634 477 524 57 EC 3854 6619 6874 7167

Unspecified 1924 2128 1139 641 643 491 918 39

Donor Hungary Amount Constant Prices (2006 $ millions) Type of flow Net Disbursements Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Type of aid ODA 2501 716 9866 14949 7487 ODAGNI 003 007 011 014 007 Bilateral ODA 1637 3623 3889 8434 2813 Multilateral ODA 866 3536 5978 6515 4674

16

Donor Poland Amount Constant Prices (2006 $ millions) Type of flow Net Disbursements Year 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Type of aid ODA 2758 3208 4646 5226 2041 3693 14399 21656 29679 30628 ODAGNI 001 001 002 002 NA 001 005 007 009 009 Bilateral ODA 2012 2313 2104 4515 1273 2576 305 5072 11899 12426 Multilateral ODA 745 895 2541 711 769 1118 11349 16584 1778 18202

UN Agencies 966 398 EC 9376 1707

Unspecified 1007 16584 1778 734

Donor Slovak Republic Amount Constant Prices (2006 $ millions) Type of flow Net Disbursements Year 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Type of aid ODA 1445 1172 1648 1192 2084 3227 6032 5511 5546 ODAGNI 004 003 004 002 005 007 012 01 009 Bilateral ODA 805 342 675 664 1177 1229 3301 2475 2265 Multilateral ODA 64 83 973 528 905 1997 273 3036 3281

Appendix 2 Tables 1 ndash 4 Top 3 Recipients of Bilateral ODA Donor Czech Republic Amount Constant Prices (2006) $ million Type of flow ODA net disbursements

Year Country $ million 1998 1 Palestinian-Administered Territory 166

2 Vietnam 070 3 Bosnia-Herzegovina 053 Former Yugoslavia (total) 102

1999 1 Palestinian-Administered Territory 150

2 China 066 3 Bosnia-Herzegovina 055 Former Yugoslavia (total) 139

2000 1 Palestinian-Administered Territory 169 2 Mongolia 094 3 Bosnia-Herzegovina 092 Former Yugoslavia (total) 145

2001 1 Serbia 518 2 Vietnam 177 3 India 197 4 Moldova 171 Former Yugoslavia (total) 829

2002 1 Former Yugoslavia (total) 1100 2 India 221 3 Georgia 153 Former Yugoslavia (total) 1290

2003 1 Iraq 5250 2 Afghanistan 804 3 Serbia amp Montenegro 545 Former Yugoslavia (total) 1440

2004 1 Iraq 1568 2 Serbia amp Montenegro 790 3 Afghanistan 698 Former Yugoslavia (total) 1090

2005 1 Iraq 872 2 Serbia amp Montenegro 689 3 Ukraine 495 Former Yugoslavia (total) 1050

18

18

Donor Czech Republic Amount Constant Prices (2006) $ million Type of flow ODA net disbursements

Year Country $ million 2006 1 Iraq 118

2 Serbia 6 3 Afghanistan 42 Former Yugoslavia (total) 106

Donor Hungary Amount Constant Prices (2006) $ million Type of flow ODA net disbursements

Year Country $ million 2003 1 Serbia 305

2 Vietnam 052 3 Croatia 054 Former Yugoslavia (total) 55

2004 1 Bosnia-Herzegovina 1920 2 Serbia 332 3 Iraq 181 4 Afghanistan 166 Former Yugoslavia (total) 2314

2005 1 Serbia 1012 2 Yemen 986 3 Tanzania 941 Former Yugoslavia (total) 1023

2006 1 Iraq 6715 2 Afghanistan 039 3 Vietnam 031

Former Yugoslavia (total) 059

Donor Poland Amount Constant Prices (2006) $ million Type of flow ODA net disbursements

Year Country $ million 1998 1 Bosnia-Herzegovina 373

2 Vietnam 326 3 Kazakhstan 214 Former Yugoslavia (total) 419

19

19

Donor Poland Amount Constant Prices (2006) $ million Type of flow ODA net disbursements

Year Country $ million 1999 1 Bosnia-Herzegovina 355

2 Macedonia 282 3 Kazakhstan 234 Former Yugoslavia (total) 897

2000 1 Argentina 519 2 Kazakhstan 316 3 Vietnam 164 Former Yugoslavia (total) 174

2001 1 Yemen 347 2 Kazakhstan 256 3 Vietnam 232 Former Yugoslavia (total) 114

2002 1 China 528 2 Kazakhstan 24 3 Vietnam 044 Former Yugoslavia (total) 092

2003 1 Serbia 152 2 Kazakhstan 24 3 China 202 Former Yugoslavia (total) 157

2004 1 Ethiopia 107 2 Serbia 997 3 China 19 4 Kazakhstan 162 Former Yugoslavia (total) 104

2005 1 Serbia 198 2 Ukraine 651 3 Uzbekistan 63 Former Yugoslavia (total) 204

2006 1 Angola 924 2 Ukraine 651 3 Belarus 677 Former Yugoslavia (total) 175

20

20

Donor Slovak Republic Amount Constant Prices (2006) $ million Type of flow ODA net disbursements

Year $ million 2002 1 Former Yugoslavia (total) 083

2 Sudan 018 3 Kenya 016

2003 1 Former Yugoslavia (total) 307 2 Iraq 113 3 Kenya 039

2004 1 Former Yugoslavia (total) 364 2 Hong Kong China 158 3 Georgia 054 4 Afghanistan 043

2005 1 Sudan 1857 2 Afghanistan 474 3 Former Yugoslavia (total) 408

2006 1 Sudan 1498 2 Afghanistan 154 3 Mongolia 064

21

21

Reference Alesina A amp Dollar D (2000) Who Gives Foreign Aid to Whom and Why Journal of

Economic Growth 5 33-63 Bearce D H amp Tirone D C (2007) Foreign Aid Recipient Growth and the Strategic Goals

of Donor Governments manuscript for APSA 2007 Bertheacutelemy J-C amp Tichit A (2004) Bilateral donors aid allocations decisions - a three-

dimensional panel analysis International Review of Economics and Finance Caritas (2006) Vyrocni zprava 2005 Praha Ceska katolicka charita CEC (2006) Communication for the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament

Financing for Development and Aid Effectiveness ndash The challenges of scaling up EU aid 2006 ndash 2008

Granell F (2005) Can the Fifth Enlargement Weaken the EUs Development Cooperation Jean MonnetRobert Schuman Paper Series 5(24 August)

Isenman P (1976) Biases in Aid Allocations Against Poorer and Larger Countries World Development 44 631-641 King M Exnerova V Blazek O Eds (2006) Annual Report 2005 Prague People In Need

Lancaster C (2007) Foreign Aid Chicago and London The University of Chicago Press Maizels A amp Nissanke M K (1984) Motivations for Aid to Developing Countries World

Development 12(9) 870-900 Malkin B amp agencies (2006) Poland to Send More Troops to Afghanistan Guardian

Unlimited September 14 Retrieved 2202008 from wwwguardiancoukafghanistanstory0187212500html

McKinlay R D amp Little R (1977) A Foreign Policy Model of US Bilateral Aid Allocations World Politics 30 58-86

McKinlay R D amp Little R (1978i) The French Aid Relationship A Foreign Policy Model of the Disribution of French Bilateral Aid 1964-1970 Development and Change 9 459-478

McKinlay R D amp Little R (1978ii) A Foreign-Policy Model of the Distribution of British Billateral Aid1960-1970 British Journal of Political Science 8 313-331

McKinlay R D amp Little R (1978iii) The German Aid Relationship A Test of the Recipient Need and the Donor Interest 1960-1970 European Journal of Political Research 6 235-257

McKinlay R D amp Little R (1979) The US Aid Relationship A Test of the Recipient Need and the Donor Interest Model Political Studies 27 236-250

McNamara S (2007) ldquoThe PolishndashAmerican Relationship Deepening and Strengthening the Alliancerdquo Backgrounder 2010 February 27 1-13

Migliorisi S (2003) The Consequences of Enlargement for Development Policy (a report for European Commission)

Moravcsik A amp Vaduchova A M (2003) National Interest State Power and EU Enlargement East European Politics and Societies 17(1) 42-57

Morgenthau H (1962) A Political Theory of Foreign Aid The American Political Science Review 56(2) 301-309

Neumayer E (2003) The Pattern of Aid Giving London and New York Routledge OECD (2008) Glossary of Statistical Terms Retrieved 5282008 from

httpstatsoecdorgglossarydetailaspID=1176 OECD (2008) Development Cooperation Report 2007 (Summary) OECD-DAC (2007) DACs Glossary Retrieved 2202008 from

Schraeder P J Hook S W amp Taylor B (1998) ldquoClarifying the Foreign Aid Puzzle A

httpwwwoecdorgglossary02586en_2649_33721_1965693_1_1_1_100html1965586

22

22

Comparison of American Japanese French and Swedish Aid Flowsrdquo World Politics 50(2) 294-323

Snyder J (2004) One World Rival Theories Foreign Policy (NovDec) 52-62 Theacuterien J-P amp Noeumll A (2000) ldquoPolitical Parties and Foreign Aidrdquo American Political Science

Review 94 (March)(1) 151-162 UNDP (2008) The Human Development Report 20072008 Technical Note UN World Bank (2006) Measuring Progress in Least Developed Countries a statistical profile Waltz K (1979) Theory of International Politics New York Random House

  • R Schuman
    • Vol 5 No 19
    • December 2008
      • Introduction
      • This research aims to contribute to understanding why countries give foreign aid It focuses on the new donors of Central-Eastern Europe (the Czech Republic Hungary Poland and Slovakia) and the Baltic states (Estonia Latvia Lithuania) These cou

16

Donor Poland Amount Constant Prices (2006 $ millions) Type of flow Net Disbursements Year 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Type of aid ODA 2758 3208 4646 5226 2041 3693 14399 21656 29679 30628 ODAGNI 001 001 002 002 NA 001 005 007 009 009 Bilateral ODA 2012 2313 2104 4515 1273 2576 305 5072 11899 12426 Multilateral ODA 745 895 2541 711 769 1118 11349 16584 1778 18202

UN Agencies 966 398 EC 9376 1707

Unspecified 1007 16584 1778 734

Donor Slovak Republic Amount Constant Prices (2006 $ millions) Type of flow Net Disbursements Year 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Type of aid ODA 1445 1172 1648 1192 2084 3227 6032 5511 5546 ODAGNI 004 003 004 002 005 007 012 01 009 Bilateral ODA 805 342 675 664 1177 1229 3301 2475 2265 Multilateral ODA 64 83 973 528 905 1997 273 3036 3281

Appendix 2 Tables 1 ndash 4 Top 3 Recipients of Bilateral ODA Donor Czech Republic Amount Constant Prices (2006) $ million Type of flow ODA net disbursements

Year Country $ million 1998 1 Palestinian-Administered Territory 166

2 Vietnam 070 3 Bosnia-Herzegovina 053 Former Yugoslavia (total) 102

1999 1 Palestinian-Administered Territory 150

2 China 066 3 Bosnia-Herzegovina 055 Former Yugoslavia (total) 139

2000 1 Palestinian-Administered Territory 169 2 Mongolia 094 3 Bosnia-Herzegovina 092 Former Yugoslavia (total) 145

2001 1 Serbia 518 2 Vietnam 177 3 India 197 4 Moldova 171 Former Yugoslavia (total) 829

2002 1 Former Yugoslavia (total) 1100 2 India 221 3 Georgia 153 Former Yugoslavia (total) 1290

2003 1 Iraq 5250 2 Afghanistan 804 3 Serbia amp Montenegro 545 Former Yugoslavia (total) 1440

2004 1 Iraq 1568 2 Serbia amp Montenegro 790 3 Afghanistan 698 Former Yugoslavia (total) 1090

2005 1 Iraq 872 2 Serbia amp Montenegro 689 3 Ukraine 495 Former Yugoslavia (total) 1050

18

18

Donor Czech Republic Amount Constant Prices (2006) $ million Type of flow ODA net disbursements

Year Country $ million 2006 1 Iraq 118

2 Serbia 6 3 Afghanistan 42 Former Yugoslavia (total) 106

Donor Hungary Amount Constant Prices (2006) $ million Type of flow ODA net disbursements

Year Country $ million 2003 1 Serbia 305

2 Vietnam 052 3 Croatia 054 Former Yugoslavia (total) 55

2004 1 Bosnia-Herzegovina 1920 2 Serbia 332 3 Iraq 181 4 Afghanistan 166 Former Yugoslavia (total) 2314

2005 1 Serbia 1012 2 Yemen 986 3 Tanzania 941 Former Yugoslavia (total) 1023

2006 1 Iraq 6715 2 Afghanistan 039 3 Vietnam 031

Former Yugoslavia (total) 059

Donor Poland Amount Constant Prices (2006) $ million Type of flow ODA net disbursements

Year Country $ million 1998 1 Bosnia-Herzegovina 373

2 Vietnam 326 3 Kazakhstan 214 Former Yugoslavia (total) 419

19

19

Donor Poland Amount Constant Prices (2006) $ million Type of flow ODA net disbursements

Year Country $ million 1999 1 Bosnia-Herzegovina 355

2 Macedonia 282 3 Kazakhstan 234 Former Yugoslavia (total) 897

2000 1 Argentina 519 2 Kazakhstan 316 3 Vietnam 164 Former Yugoslavia (total) 174

2001 1 Yemen 347 2 Kazakhstan 256 3 Vietnam 232 Former Yugoslavia (total) 114

2002 1 China 528 2 Kazakhstan 24 3 Vietnam 044 Former Yugoslavia (total) 092

2003 1 Serbia 152 2 Kazakhstan 24 3 China 202 Former Yugoslavia (total) 157

2004 1 Ethiopia 107 2 Serbia 997 3 China 19 4 Kazakhstan 162 Former Yugoslavia (total) 104

2005 1 Serbia 198 2 Ukraine 651 3 Uzbekistan 63 Former Yugoslavia (total) 204

2006 1 Angola 924 2 Ukraine 651 3 Belarus 677 Former Yugoslavia (total) 175

20

20

Donor Slovak Republic Amount Constant Prices (2006) $ million Type of flow ODA net disbursements

Year $ million 2002 1 Former Yugoslavia (total) 083

2 Sudan 018 3 Kenya 016

2003 1 Former Yugoslavia (total) 307 2 Iraq 113 3 Kenya 039

2004 1 Former Yugoslavia (total) 364 2 Hong Kong China 158 3 Georgia 054 4 Afghanistan 043

2005 1 Sudan 1857 2 Afghanistan 474 3 Former Yugoslavia (total) 408

2006 1 Sudan 1498 2 Afghanistan 154 3 Mongolia 064

21

21

Reference Alesina A amp Dollar D (2000) Who Gives Foreign Aid to Whom and Why Journal of

Economic Growth 5 33-63 Bearce D H amp Tirone D C (2007) Foreign Aid Recipient Growth and the Strategic Goals

of Donor Governments manuscript for APSA 2007 Bertheacutelemy J-C amp Tichit A (2004) Bilateral donors aid allocations decisions - a three-

dimensional panel analysis International Review of Economics and Finance Caritas (2006) Vyrocni zprava 2005 Praha Ceska katolicka charita CEC (2006) Communication for the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament

Financing for Development and Aid Effectiveness ndash The challenges of scaling up EU aid 2006 ndash 2008

Granell F (2005) Can the Fifth Enlargement Weaken the EUs Development Cooperation Jean MonnetRobert Schuman Paper Series 5(24 August)

Isenman P (1976) Biases in Aid Allocations Against Poorer and Larger Countries World Development 44 631-641 King M Exnerova V Blazek O Eds (2006) Annual Report 2005 Prague People In Need

Lancaster C (2007) Foreign Aid Chicago and London The University of Chicago Press Maizels A amp Nissanke M K (1984) Motivations for Aid to Developing Countries World

Development 12(9) 870-900 Malkin B amp agencies (2006) Poland to Send More Troops to Afghanistan Guardian

Unlimited September 14 Retrieved 2202008 from wwwguardiancoukafghanistanstory0187212500html

McKinlay R D amp Little R (1977) A Foreign Policy Model of US Bilateral Aid Allocations World Politics 30 58-86

McKinlay R D amp Little R (1978i) The French Aid Relationship A Foreign Policy Model of the Disribution of French Bilateral Aid 1964-1970 Development and Change 9 459-478

McKinlay R D amp Little R (1978ii) A Foreign-Policy Model of the Distribution of British Billateral Aid1960-1970 British Journal of Political Science 8 313-331

McKinlay R D amp Little R (1978iii) The German Aid Relationship A Test of the Recipient Need and the Donor Interest 1960-1970 European Journal of Political Research 6 235-257

McKinlay R D amp Little R (1979) The US Aid Relationship A Test of the Recipient Need and the Donor Interest Model Political Studies 27 236-250

McNamara S (2007) ldquoThe PolishndashAmerican Relationship Deepening and Strengthening the Alliancerdquo Backgrounder 2010 February 27 1-13

Migliorisi S (2003) The Consequences of Enlargement for Development Policy (a report for European Commission)

Moravcsik A amp Vaduchova A M (2003) National Interest State Power and EU Enlargement East European Politics and Societies 17(1) 42-57

Morgenthau H (1962) A Political Theory of Foreign Aid The American Political Science Review 56(2) 301-309

Neumayer E (2003) The Pattern of Aid Giving London and New York Routledge OECD (2008) Glossary of Statistical Terms Retrieved 5282008 from

httpstatsoecdorgglossarydetailaspID=1176 OECD (2008) Development Cooperation Report 2007 (Summary) OECD-DAC (2007) DACs Glossary Retrieved 2202008 from

Schraeder P J Hook S W amp Taylor B (1998) ldquoClarifying the Foreign Aid Puzzle A

httpwwwoecdorgglossary02586en_2649_33721_1965693_1_1_1_100html1965586

22

22

Comparison of American Japanese French and Swedish Aid Flowsrdquo World Politics 50(2) 294-323

Snyder J (2004) One World Rival Theories Foreign Policy (NovDec) 52-62 Theacuterien J-P amp Noeumll A (2000) ldquoPolitical Parties and Foreign Aidrdquo American Political Science

Review 94 (March)(1) 151-162 UNDP (2008) The Human Development Report 20072008 Technical Note UN World Bank (2006) Measuring Progress in Least Developed Countries a statistical profile Waltz K (1979) Theory of International Politics New York Random House

  • R Schuman
    • Vol 5 No 19
    • December 2008
      • Introduction
      • This research aims to contribute to understanding why countries give foreign aid It focuses on the new donors of Central-Eastern Europe (the Czech Republic Hungary Poland and Slovakia) and the Baltic states (Estonia Latvia Lithuania) These cou

Appendix 2 Tables 1 ndash 4 Top 3 Recipients of Bilateral ODA Donor Czech Republic Amount Constant Prices (2006) $ million Type of flow ODA net disbursements

Year Country $ million 1998 1 Palestinian-Administered Territory 166

2 Vietnam 070 3 Bosnia-Herzegovina 053 Former Yugoslavia (total) 102

1999 1 Palestinian-Administered Territory 150

2 China 066 3 Bosnia-Herzegovina 055 Former Yugoslavia (total) 139

2000 1 Palestinian-Administered Territory 169 2 Mongolia 094 3 Bosnia-Herzegovina 092 Former Yugoslavia (total) 145

2001 1 Serbia 518 2 Vietnam 177 3 India 197 4 Moldova 171 Former Yugoslavia (total) 829

2002 1 Former Yugoslavia (total) 1100 2 India 221 3 Georgia 153 Former Yugoslavia (total) 1290

2003 1 Iraq 5250 2 Afghanistan 804 3 Serbia amp Montenegro 545 Former Yugoslavia (total) 1440

2004 1 Iraq 1568 2 Serbia amp Montenegro 790 3 Afghanistan 698 Former Yugoslavia (total) 1090

2005 1 Iraq 872 2 Serbia amp Montenegro 689 3 Ukraine 495 Former Yugoslavia (total) 1050

18

18

Donor Czech Republic Amount Constant Prices (2006) $ million Type of flow ODA net disbursements

Year Country $ million 2006 1 Iraq 118

2 Serbia 6 3 Afghanistan 42 Former Yugoslavia (total) 106

Donor Hungary Amount Constant Prices (2006) $ million Type of flow ODA net disbursements

Year Country $ million 2003 1 Serbia 305

2 Vietnam 052 3 Croatia 054 Former Yugoslavia (total) 55

2004 1 Bosnia-Herzegovina 1920 2 Serbia 332 3 Iraq 181 4 Afghanistan 166 Former Yugoslavia (total) 2314

2005 1 Serbia 1012 2 Yemen 986 3 Tanzania 941 Former Yugoslavia (total) 1023

2006 1 Iraq 6715 2 Afghanistan 039 3 Vietnam 031

Former Yugoslavia (total) 059

Donor Poland Amount Constant Prices (2006) $ million Type of flow ODA net disbursements

Year Country $ million 1998 1 Bosnia-Herzegovina 373

2 Vietnam 326 3 Kazakhstan 214 Former Yugoslavia (total) 419

19

19

Donor Poland Amount Constant Prices (2006) $ million Type of flow ODA net disbursements

Year Country $ million 1999 1 Bosnia-Herzegovina 355

2 Macedonia 282 3 Kazakhstan 234 Former Yugoslavia (total) 897

2000 1 Argentina 519 2 Kazakhstan 316 3 Vietnam 164 Former Yugoslavia (total) 174

2001 1 Yemen 347 2 Kazakhstan 256 3 Vietnam 232 Former Yugoslavia (total) 114

2002 1 China 528 2 Kazakhstan 24 3 Vietnam 044 Former Yugoslavia (total) 092

2003 1 Serbia 152 2 Kazakhstan 24 3 China 202 Former Yugoslavia (total) 157

2004 1 Ethiopia 107 2 Serbia 997 3 China 19 4 Kazakhstan 162 Former Yugoslavia (total) 104

2005 1 Serbia 198 2 Ukraine 651 3 Uzbekistan 63 Former Yugoslavia (total) 204

2006 1 Angola 924 2 Ukraine 651 3 Belarus 677 Former Yugoslavia (total) 175

20

20

Donor Slovak Republic Amount Constant Prices (2006) $ million Type of flow ODA net disbursements

Year $ million 2002 1 Former Yugoslavia (total) 083

2 Sudan 018 3 Kenya 016

2003 1 Former Yugoslavia (total) 307 2 Iraq 113 3 Kenya 039

2004 1 Former Yugoslavia (total) 364 2 Hong Kong China 158 3 Georgia 054 4 Afghanistan 043

2005 1 Sudan 1857 2 Afghanistan 474 3 Former Yugoslavia (total) 408

2006 1 Sudan 1498 2 Afghanistan 154 3 Mongolia 064

21

21

Reference Alesina A amp Dollar D (2000) Who Gives Foreign Aid to Whom and Why Journal of

Economic Growth 5 33-63 Bearce D H amp Tirone D C (2007) Foreign Aid Recipient Growth and the Strategic Goals

of Donor Governments manuscript for APSA 2007 Bertheacutelemy J-C amp Tichit A (2004) Bilateral donors aid allocations decisions - a three-

dimensional panel analysis International Review of Economics and Finance Caritas (2006) Vyrocni zprava 2005 Praha Ceska katolicka charita CEC (2006) Communication for the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament

Financing for Development and Aid Effectiveness ndash The challenges of scaling up EU aid 2006 ndash 2008

Granell F (2005) Can the Fifth Enlargement Weaken the EUs Development Cooperation Jean MonnetRobert Schuman Paper Series 5(24 August)

Isenman P (1976) Biases in Aid Allocations Against Poorer and Larger Countries World Development 44 631-641 King M Exnerova V Blazek O Eds (2006) Annual Report 2005 Prague People In Need

Lancaster C (2007) Foreign Aid Chicago and London The University of Chicago Press Maizels A amp Nissanke M K (1984) Motivations for Aid to Developing Countries World

Development 12(9) 870-900 Malkin B amp agencies (2006) Poland to Send More Troops to Afghanistan Guardian

Unlimited September 14 Retrieved 2202008 from wwwguardiancoukafghanistanstory0187212500html

McKinlay R D amp Little R (1977) A Foreign Policy Model of US Bilateral Aid Allocations World Politics 30 58-86

McKinlay R D amp Little R (1978i) The French Aid Relationship A Foreign Policy Model of the Disribution of French Bilateral Aid 1964-1970 Development and Change 9 459-478

McKinlay R D amp Little R (1978ii) A Foreign-Policy Model of the Distribution of British Billateral Aid1960-1970 British Journal of Political Science 8 313-331

McKinlay R D amp Little R (1978iii) The German Aid Relationship A Test of the Recipient Need and the Donor Interest 1960-1970 European Journal of Political Research 6 235-257

McKinlay R D amp Little R (1979) The US Aid Relationship A Test of the Recipient Need and the Donor Interest Model Political Studies 27 236-250

McNamara S (2007) ldquoThe PolishndashAmerican Relationship Deepening and Strengthening the Alliancerdquo Backgrounder 2010 February 27 1-13

Migliorisi S (2003) The Consequences of Enlargement for Development Policy (a report for European Commission)

Moravcsik A amp Vaduchova A M (2003) National Interest State Power and EU Enlargement East European Politics and Societies 17(1) 42-57

Morgenthau H (1962) A Political Theory of Foreign Aid The American Political Science Review 56(2) 301-309

Neumayer E (2003) The Pattern of Aid Giving London and New York Routledge OECD (2008) Glossary of Statistical Terms Retrieved 5282008 from

httpstatsoecdorgglossarydetailaspID=1176 OECD (2008) Development Cooperation Report 2007 (Summary) OECD-DAC (2007) DACs Glossary Retrieved 2202008 from

Schraeder P J Hook S W amp Taylor B (1998) ldquoClarifying the Foreign Aid Puzzle A

httpwwwoecdorgglossary02586en_2649_33721_1965693_1_1_1_100html1965586

22

22

Comparison of American Japanese French and Swedish Aid Flowsrdquo World Politics 50(2) 294-323

Snyder J (2004) One World Rival Theories Foreign Policy (NovDec) 52-62 Theacuterien J-P amp Noeumll A (2000) ldquoPolitical Parties and Foreign Aidrdquo American Political Science

Review 94 (March)(1) 151-162 UNDP (2008) The Human Development Report 20072008 Technical Note UN World Bank (2006) Measuring Progress in Least Developed Countries a statistical profile Waltz K (1979) Theory of International Politics New York Random House

  • R Schuman
    • Vol 5 No 19
    • December 2008
      • Introduction
      • This research aims to contribute to understanding why countries give foreign aid It focuses on the new donors of Central-Eastern Europe (the Czech Republic Hungary Poland and Slovakia) and the Baltic states (Estonia Latvia Lithuania) These cou

18

18

Donor Czech Republic Amount Constant Prices (2006) $ million Type of flow ODA net disbursements

Year Country $ million 2006 1 Iraq 118

2 Serbia 6 3 Afghanistan 42 Former Yugoslavia (total) 106

Donor Hungary Amount Constant Prices (2006) $ million Type of flow ODA net disbursements

Year Country $ million 2003 1 Serbia 305

2 Vietnam 052 3 Croatia 054 Former Yugoslavia (total) 55

2004 1 Bosnia-Herzegovina 1920 2 Serbia 332 3 Iraq 181 4 Afghanistan 166 Former Yugoslavia (total) 2314

2005 1 Serbia 1012 2 Yemen 986 3 Tanzania 941 Former Yugoslavia (total) 1023

2006 1 Iraq 6715 2 Afghanistan 039 3 Vietnam 031

Former Yugoslavia (total) 059

Donor Poland Amount Constant Prices (2006) $ million Type of flow ODA net disbursements

Year Country $ million 1998 1 Bosnia-Herzegovina 373

2 Vietnam 326 3 Kazakhstan 214 Former Yugoslavia (total) 419

19

19

Donor Poland Amount Constant Prices (2006) $ million Type of flow ODA net disbursements

Year Country $ million 1999 1 Bosnia-Herzegovina 355

2 Macedonia 282 3 Kazakhstan 234 Former Yugoslavia (total) 897

2000 1 Argentina 519 2 Kazakhstan 316 3 Vietnam 164 Former Yugoslavia (total) 174

2001 1 Yemen 347 2 Kazakhstan 256 3 Vietnam 232 Former Yugoslavia (total) 114

2002 1 China 528 2 Kazakhstan 24 3 Vietnam 044 Former Yugoslavia (total) 092

2003 1 Serbia 152 2 Kazakhstan 24 3 China 202 Former Yugoslavia (total) 157

2004 1 Ethiopia 107 2 Serbia 997 3 China 19 4 Kazakhstan 162 Former Yugoslavia (total) 104

2005 1 Serbia 198 2 Ukraine 651 3 Uzbekistan 63 Former Yugoslavia (total) 204

2006 1 Angola 924 2 Ukraine 651 3 Belarus 677 Former Yugoslavia (total) 175

20

20

Donor Slovak Republic Amount Constant Prices (2006) $ million Type of flow ODA net disbursements

Year $ million 2002 1 Former Yugoslavia (total) 083

2 Sudan 018 3 Kenya 016

2003 1 Former Yugoslavia (total) 307 2 Iraq 113 3 Kenya 039

2004 1 Former Yugoslavia (total) 364 2 Hong Kong China 158 3 Georgia 054 4 Afghanistan 043

2005 1 Sudan 1857 2 Afghanistan 474 3 Former Yugoslavia (total) 408

2006 1 Sudan 1498 2 Afghanistan 154 3 Mongolia 064

21

21

Reference Alesina A amp Dollar D (2000) Who Gives Foreign Aid to Whom and Why Journal of

Economic Growth 5 33-63 Bearce D H amp Tirone D C (2007) Foreign Aid Recipient Growth and the Strategic Goals

of Donor Governments manuscript for APSA 2007 Bertheacutelemy J-C amp Tichit A (2004) Bilateral donors aid allocations decisions - a three-

dimensional panel analysis International Review of Economics and Finance Caritas (2006) Vyrocni zprava 2005 Praha Ceska katolicka charita CEC (2006) Communication for the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament

Financing for Development and Aid Effectiveness ndash The challenges of scaling up EU aid 2006 ndash 2008

Granell F (2005) Can the Fifth Enlargement Weaken the EUs Development Cooperation Jean MonnetRobert Schuman Paper Series 5(24 August)

Isenman P (1976) Biases in Aid Allocations Against Poorer and Larger Countries World Development 44 631-641 King M Exnerova V Blazek O Eds (2006) Annual Report 2005 Prague People In Need

Lancaster C (2007) Foreign Aid Chicago and London The University of Chicago Press Maizels A amp Nissanke M K (1984) Motivations for Aid to Developing Countries World

Development 12(9) 870-900 Malkin B amp agencies (2006) Poland to Send More Troops to Afghanistan Guardian

Unlimited September 14 Retrieved 2202008 from wwwguardiancoukafghanistanstory0187212500html

McKinlay R D amp Little R (1977) A Foreign Policy Model of US Bilateral Aid Allocations World Politics 30 58-86

McKinlay R D amp Little R (1978i) The French Aid Relationship A Foreign Policy Model of the Disribution of French Bilateral Aid 1964-1970 Development and Change 9 459-478

McKinlay R D amp Little R (1978ii) A Foreign-Policy Model of the Distribution of British Billateral Aid1960-1970 British Journal of Political Science 8 313-331

McKinlay R D amp Little R (1978iii) The German Aid Relationship A Test of the Recipient Need and the Donor Interest 1960-1970 European Journal of Political Research 6 235-257

McKinlay R D amp Little R (1979) The US Aid Relationship A Test of the Recipient Need and the Donor Interest Model Political Studies 27 236-250

McNamara S (2007) ldquoThe PolishndashAmerican Relationship Deepening and Strengthening the Alliancerdquo Backgrounder 2010 February 27 1-13

Migliorisi S (2003) The Consequences of Enlargement for Development Policy (a report for European Commission)

Moravcsik A amp Vaduchova A M (2003) National Interest State Power and EU Enlargement East European Politics and Societies 17(1) 42-57

Morgenthau H (1962) A Political Theory of Foreign Aid The American Political Science Review 56(2) 301-309

Neumayer E (2003) The Pattern of Aid Giving London and New York Routledge OECD (2008) Glossary of Statistical Terms Retrieved 5282008 from

httpstatsoecdorgglossarydetailaspID=1176 OECD (2008) Development Cooperation Report 2007 (Summary) OECD-DAC (2007) DACs Glossary Retrieved 2202008 from

Schraeder P J Hook S W amp Taylor B (1998) ldquoClarifying the Foreign Aid Puzzle A

httpwwwoecdorgglossary02586en_2649_33721_1965693_1_1_1_100html1965586

22

22

Comparison of American Japanese French and Swedish Aid Flowsrdquo World Politics 50(2) 294-323

Snyder J (2004) One World Rival Theories Foreign Policy (NovDec) 52-62 Theacuterien J-P amp Noeumll A (2000) ldquoPolitical Parties and Foreign Aidrdquo American Political Science

Review 94 (March)(1) 151-162 UNDP (2008) The Human Development Report 20072008 Technical Note UN World Bank (2006) Measuring Progress in Least Developed Countries a statistical profile Waltz K (1979) Theory of International Politics New York Random House

  • R Schuman
    • Vol 5 No 19
    • December 2008
      • Introduction
      • This research aims to contribute to understanding why countries give foreign aid It focuses on the new donors of Central-Eastern Europe (the Czech Republic Hungary Poland and Slovakia) and the Baltic states (Estonia Latvia Lithuania) These cou

19

19

Donor Poland Amount Constant Prices (2006) $ million Type of flow ODA net disbursements

Year Country $ million 1999 1 Bosnia-Herzegovina 355

2 Macedonia 282 3 Kazakhstan 234 Former Yugoslavia (total) 897

2000 1 Argentina 519 2 Kazakhstan 316 3 Vietnam 164 Former Yugoslavia (total) 174

2001 1 Yemen 347 2 Kazakhstan 256 3 Vietnam 232 Former Yugoslavia (total) 114

2002 1 China 528 2 Kazakhstan 24 3 Vietnam 044 Former Yugoslavia (total) 092

2003 1 Serbia 152 2 Kazakhstan 24 3 China 202 Former Yugoslavia (total) 157

2004 1 Ethiopia 107 2 Serbia 997 3 China 19 4 Kazakhstan 162 Former Yugoslavia (total) 104

2005 1 Serbia 198 2 Ukraine 651 3 Uzbekistan 63 Former Yugoslavia (total) 204

2006 1 Angola 924 2 Ukraine 651 3 Belarus 677 Former Yugoslavia (total) 175

20

20

Donor Slovak Republic Amount Constant Prices (2006) $ million Type of flow ODA net disbursements

Year $ million 2002 1 Former Yugoslavia (total) 083

2 Sudan 018 3 Kenya 016

2003 1 Former Yugoslavia (total) 307 2 Iraq 113 3 Kenya 039

2004 1 Former Yugoslavia (total) 364 2 Hong Kong China 158 3 Georgia 054 4 Afghanistan 043

2005 1 Sudan 1857 2 Afghanistan 474 3 Former Yugoslavia (total) 408

2006 1 Sudan 1498 2 Afghanistan 154 3 Mongolia 064

21

21

Reference Alesina A amp Dollar D (2000) Who Gives Foreign Aid to Whom and Why Journal of

Economic Growth 5 33-63 Bearce D H amp Tirone D C (2007) Foreign Aid Recipient Growth and the Strategic Goals

of Donor Governments manuscript for APSA 2007 Bertheacutelemy J-C amp Tichit A (2004) Bilateral donors aid allocations decisions - a three-

dimensional panel analysis International Review of Economics and Finance Caritas (2006) Vyrocni zprava 2005 Praha Ceska katolicka charita CEC (2006) Communication for the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament

Financing for Development and Aid Effectiveness ndash The challenges of scaling up EU aid 2006 ndash 2008

Granell F (2005) Can the Fifth Enlargement Weaken the EUs Development Cooperation Jean MonnetRobert Schuman Paper Series 5(24 August)

Isenman P (1976) Biases in Aid Allocations Against Poorer and Larger Countries World Development 44 631-641 King M Exnerova V Blazek O Eds (2006) Annual Report 2005 Prague People In Need

Lancaster C (2007) Foreign Aid Chicago and London The University of Chicago Press Maizels A amp Nissanke M K (1984) Motivations for Aid to Developing Countries World

Development 12(9) 870-900 Malkin B amp agencies (2006) Poland to Send More Troops to Afghanistan Guardian

Unlimited September 14 Retrieved 2202008 from wwwguardiancoukafghanistanstory0187212500html

McKinlay R D amp Little R (1977) A Foreign Policy Model of US Bilateral Aid Allocations World Politics 30 58-86

McKinlay R D amp Little R (1978i) The French Aid Relationship A Foreign Policy Model of the Disribution of French Bilateral Aid 1964-1970 Development and Change 9 459-478

McKinlay R D amp Little R (1978ii) A Foreign-Policy Model of the Distribution of British Billateral Aid1960-1970 British Journal of Political Science 8 313-331

McKinlay R D amp Little R (1978iii) The German Aid Relationship A Test of the Recipient Need and the Donor Interest 1960-1970 European Journal of Political Research 6 235-257

McKinlay R D amp Little R (1979) The US Aid Relationship A Test of the Recipient Need and the Donor Interest Model Political Studies 27 236-250

McNamara S (2007) ldquoThe PolishndashAmerican Relationship Deepening and Strengthening the Alliancerdquo Backgrounder 2010 February 27 1-13

Migliorisi S (2003) The Consequences of Enlargement for Development Policy (a report for European Commission)

Moravcsik A amp Vaduchova A M (2003) National Interest State Power and EU Enlargement East European Politics and Societies 17(1) 42-57

Morgenthau H (1962) A Political Theory of Foreign Aid The American Political Science Review 56(2) 301-309

Neumayer E (2003) The Pattern of Aid Giving London and New York Routledge OECD (2008) Glossary of Statistical Terms Retrieved 5282008 from

httpstatsoecdorgglossarydetailaspID=1176 OECD (2008) Development Cooperation Report 2007 (Summary) OECD-DAC (2007) DACs Glossary Retrieved 2202008 from

Schraeder P J Hook S W amp Taylor B (1998) ldquoClarifying the Foreign Aid Puzzle A

httpwwwoecdorgglossary02586en_2649_33721_1965693_1_1_1_100html1965586

22

22

Comparison of American Japanese French and Swedish Aid Flowsrdquo World Politics 50(2) 294-323

Snyder J (2004) One World Rival Theories Foreign Policy (NovDec) 52-62 Theacuterien J-P amp Noeumll A (2000) ldquoPolitical Parties and Foreign Aidrdquo American Political Science

Review 94 (March)(1) 151-162 UNDP (2008) The Human Development Report 20072008 Technical Note UN World Bank (2006) Measuring Progress in Least Developed Countries a statistical profile Waltz K (1979) Theory of International Politics New York Random House

  • R Schuman
    • Vol 5 No 19
    • December 2008
      • Introduction
      • This research aims to contribute to understanding why countries give foreign aid It focuses on the new donors of Central-Eastern Europe (the Czech Republic Hungary Poland and Slovakia) and the Baltic states (Estonia Latvia Lithuania) These cou

20

20

Donor Slovak Republic Amount Constant Prices (2006) $ million Type of flow ODA net disbursements

Year $ million 2002 1 Former Yugoslavia (total) 083

2 Sudan 018 3 Kenya 016

2003 1 Former Yugoslavia (total) 307 2 Iraq 113 3 Kenya 039

2004 1 Former Yugoslavia (total) 364 2 Hong Kong China 158 3 Georgia 054 4 Afghanistan 043

2005 1 Sudan 1857 2 Afghanistan 474 3 Former Yugoslavia (total) 408

2006 1 Sudan 1498 2 Afghanistan 154 3 Mongolia 064

21

21

Reference Alesina A amp Dollar D (2000) Who Gives Foreign Aid to Whom and Why Journal of

Economic Growth 5 33-63 Bearce D H amp Tirone D C (2007) Foreign Aid Recipient Growth and the Strategic Goals

of Donor Governments manuscript for APSA 2007 Bertheacutelemy J-C amp Tichit A (2004) Bilateral donors aid allocations decisions - a three-

dimensional panel analysis International Review of Economics and Finance Caritas (2006) Vyrocni zprava 2005 Praha Ceska katolicka charita CEC (2006) Communication for the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament

Financing for Development and Aid Effectiveness ndash The challenges of scaling up EU aid 2006 ndash 2008

Granell F (2005) Can the Fifth Enlargement Weaken the EUs Development Cooperation Jean MonnetRobert Schuman Paper Series 5(24 August)

Isenman P (1976) Biases in Aid Allocations Against Poorer and Larger Countries World Development 44 631-641 King M Exnerova V Blazek O Eds (2006) Annual Report 2005 Prague People In Need

Lancaster C (2007) Foreign Aid Chicago and London The University of Chicago Press Maizels A amp Nissanke M K (1984) Motivations for Aid to Developing Countries World

Development 12(9) 870-900 Malkin B amp agencies (2006) Poland to Send More Troops to Afghanistan Guardian

Unlimited September 14 Retrieved 2202008 from wwwguardiancoukafghanistanstory0187212500html

McKinlay R D amp Little R (1977) A Foreign Policy Model of US Bilateral Aid Allocations World Politics 30 58-86

McKinlay R D amp Little R (1978i) The French Aid Relationship A Foreign Policy Model of the Disribution of French Bilateral Aid 1964-1970 Development and Change 9 459-478

McKinlay R D amp Little R (1978ii) A Foreign-Policy Model of the Distribution of British Billateral Aid1960-1970 British Journal of Political Science 8 313-331

McKinlay R D amp Little R (1978iii) The German Aid Relationship A Test of the Recipient Need and the Donor Interest 1960-1970 European Journal of Political Research 6 235-257

McKinlay R D amp Little R (1979) The US Aid Relationship A Test of the Recipient Need and the Donor Interest Model Political Studies 27 236-250

McNamara S (2007) ldquoThe PolishndashAmerican Relationship Deepening and Strengthening the Alliancerdquo Backgrounder 2010 February 27 1-13

Migliorisi S (2003) The Consequences of Enlargement for Development Policy (a report for European Commission)

Moravcsik A amp Vaduchova A M (2003) National Interest State Power and EU Enlargement East European Politics and Societies 17(1) 42-57

Morgenthau H (1962) A Political Theory of Foreign Aid The American Political Science Review 56(2) 301-309

Neumayer E (2003) The Pattern of Aid Giving London and New York Routledge OECD (2008) Glossary of Statistical Terms Retrieved 5282008 from

httpstatsoecdorgglossarydetailaspID=1176 OECD (2008) Development Cooperation Report 2007 (Summary) OECD-DAC (2007) DACs Glossary Retrieved 2202008 from

Schraeder P J Hook S W amp Taylor B (1998) ldquoClarifying the Foreign Aid Puzzle A

httpwwwoecdorgglossary02586en_2649_33721_1965693_1_1_1_100html1965586

22

22

Comparison of American Japanese French and Swedish Aid Flowsrdquo World Politics 50(2) 294-323

Snyder J (2004) One World Rival Theories Foreign Policy (NovDec) 52-62 Theacuterien J-P amp Noeumll A (2000) ldquoPolitical Parties and Foreign Aidrdquo American Political Science

Review 94 (March)(1) 151-162 UNDP (2008) The Human Development Report 20072008 Technical Note UN World Bank (2006) Measuring Progress in Least Developed Countries a statistical profile Waltz K (1979) Theory of International Politics New York Random House

  • R Schuman
    • Vol 5 No 19
    • December 2008
      • Introduction
      • This research aims to contribute to understanding why countries give foreign aid It focuses on the new donors of Central-Eastern Europe (the Czech Republic Hungary Poland and Slovakia) and the Baltic states (Estonia Latvia Lithuania) These cou

21

21

Reference Alesina A amp Dollar D (2000) Who Gives Foreign Aid to Whom and Why Journal of

Economic Growth 5 33-63 Bearce D H amp Tirone D C (2007) Foreign Aid Recipient Growth and the Strategic Goals

of Donor Governments manuscript for APSA 2007 Bertheacutelemy J-C amp Tichit A (2004) Bilateral donors aid allocations decisions - a three-

dimensional panel analysis International Review of Economics and Finance Caritas (2006) Vyrocni zprava 2005 Praha Ceska katolicka charita CEC (2006) Communication for the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament

Financing for Development and Aid Effectiveness ndash The challenges of scaling up EU aid 2006 ndash 2008

Granell F (2005) Can the Fifth Enlargement Weaken the EUs Development Cooperation Jean MonnetRobert Schuman Paper Series 5(24 August)

Isenman P (1976) Biases in Aid Allocations Against Poorer and Larger Countries World Development 44 631-641 King M Exnerova V Blazek O Eds (2006) Annual Report 2005 Prague People In Need

Lancaster C (2007) Foreign Aid Chicago and London The University of Chicago Press Maizels A amp Nissanke M K (1984) Motivations for Aid to Developing Countries World

Development 12(9) 870-900 Malkin B amp agencies (2006) Poland to Send More Troops to Afghanistan Guardian

Unlimited September 14 Retrieved 2202008 from wwwguardiancoukafghanistanstory0187212500html

McKinlay R D amp Little R (1977) A Foreign Policy Model of US Bilateral Aid Allocations World Politics 30 58-86

McKinlay R D amp Little R (1978i) The French Aid Relationship A Foreign Policy Model of the Disribution of French Bilateral Aid 1964-1970 Development and Change 9 459-478

McKinlay R D amp Little R (1978ii) A Foreign-Policy Model of the Distribution of British Billateral Aid1960-1970 British Journal of Political Science 8 313-331

McKinlay R D amp Little R (1978iii) The German Aid Relationship A Test of the Recipient Need and the Donor Interest 1960-1970 European Journal of Political Research 6 235-257

McKinlay R D amp Little R (1979) The US Aid Relationship A Test of the Recipient Need and the Donor Interest Model Political Studies 27 236-250

McNamara S (2007) ldquoThe PolishndashAmerican Relationship Deepening and Strengthening the Alliancerdquo Backgrounder 2010 February 27 1-13

Migliorisi S (2003) The Consequences of Enlargement for Development Policy (a report for European Commission)

Moravcsik A amp Vaduchova A M (2003) National Interest State Power and EU Enlargement East European Politics and Societies 17(1) 42-57

Morgenthau H (1962) A Political Theory of Foreign Aid The American Political Science Review 56(2) 301-309

Neumayer E (2003) The Pattern of Aid Giving London and New York Routledge OECD (2008) Glossary of Statistical Terms Retrieved 5282008 from

httpstatsoecdorgglossarydetailaspID=1176 OECD (2008) Development Cooperation Report 2007 (Summary) OECD-DAC (2007) DACs Glossary Retrieved 2202008 from

Schraeder P J Hook S W amp Taylor B (1998) ldquoClarifying the Foreign Aid Puzzle A

httpwwwoecdorgglossary02586en_2649_33721_1965693_1_1_1_100html1965586

22

22

Comparison of American Japanese French and Swedish Aid Flowsrdquo World Politics 50(2) 294-323

Snyder J (2004) One World Rival Theories Foreign Policy (NovDec) 52-62 Theacuterien J-P amp Noeumll A (2000) ldquoPolitical Parties and Foreign Aidrdquo American Political Science

Review 94 (March)(1) 151-162 UNDP (2008) The Human Development Report 20072008 Technical Note UN World Bank (2006) Measuring Progress in Least Developed Countries a statistical profile Waltz K (1979) Theory of International Politics New York Random House

  • R Schuman
    • Vol 5 No 19
    • December 2008
      • Introduction
      • This research aims to contribute to understanding why countries give foreign aid It focuses on the new donors of Central-Eastern Europe (the Czech Republic Hungary Poland and Slovakia) and the Baltic states (Estonia Latvia Lithuania) These cou

22

22

Comparison of American Japanese French and Swedish Aid Flowsrdquo World Politics 50(2) 294-323

Snyder J (2004) One World Rival Theories Foreign Policy (NovDec) 52-62 Theacuterien J-P amp Noeumll A (2000) ldquoPolitical Parties and Foreign Aidrdquo American Political Science

Review 94 (March)(1) 151-162 UNDP (2008) The Human Development Report 20072008 Technical Note UN World Bank (2006) Measuring Progress in Least Developed Countries a statistical profile Waltz K (1979) Theory of International Politics New York Random House

  • R Schuman
    • Vol 5 No 19
    • December 2008
      • Introduction
      • This research aims to contribute to understanding why countries give foreign aid It focuses on the new donors of Central-Eastern Europe (the Czech Republic Hungary Poland and Slovakia) and the Baltic states (Estonia Latvia Lithuania) These cou